Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2010-04-16 17:08:13
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6622|'Murka

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Note the numbers for 20mm gun kills compared to other means. The lack of the gun was idiotic, but it hardly accounted for the majority of the kills, even after it was added.
Did I say "majority of kills"? No.

FM wrote:

Last time I checked "big heavy block" is a pretty solid description of poor aerodynamics.
FFS, do you have OCD or something? I've explained that into the fucking ground.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Strange that I've run into plenty of aviators that have equally negative feelings about their Gucci aircraft, based on the nature of the aircraft and how well they feel it was designed. It wasn't emotional. It was based on their experience with the bird and how well it performed under less-than-ideal conditions (such as combat).
What, now you're going to knock F-16s?
I'm not knocking anything. Now as for some of the guys who transitioned from F-4s to F-16s...

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's hard to say what our ratios were against that subset of pilots. We do know that in some individual dogfights, the F-4 came out on top against the MiG-21 piloted by top Vietnamese pilots (Duke Cunningham is a case in point...no gun, either).
So what? We know in some individual dogfights the opposite happened too.
The point being that your point is moot. Multiple studies have shown that the Vietnamese pilots were well-trained, skilled aviators.

FM wrote:

You are the one that said "But with upgrades to its engines, radar, armament, and avionics, [the Phantom II] is still on par with many fourth-gen fighters out there." Either you don't know what fourth gen means, or you're pointlessly stating the obvious - that the F-4 is "on par" with some fighters of the early, early fourth gen. An F-4 would still have its ass handed to it by many non US fourth gen fighters.
FM, I know exactly what fourth gen means, or else I wouldn't have said it. I find it rather humorous that you think you can have that battle of wits with me. It's cute.

Yes, the modern F-4 would have its ass handed to it by many non-US 4th gen fighters. On the other hand, it would readily handle many of the non-US 4th-gen fighters out there...just as I said.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-16 17:10:33
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6682
feos stfu you dumb armchair general FM was practically there man
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-04-16 17:27:23
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6918|67.222.138.85

FEOS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Note the numbers for 20mm gun kills compared to other means. The lack of the gun was idiotic, but it hardly accounted for the majority of the kills, even after it was added.
Did I say "majority of kills"? No.
"and also shows that the plane was actually a pretty good dogfighter, as it was shooting down MiGs up close with guns."
This makes no sense in the context that the plane shot down less than 30 planes with the cannon. Even with the cannon, it wasn't a good dog fighter.

The plane was made to go really fast, and that's all it did. At the expense of maneuverability. If I remember right it had a nasty habit of going into a death spin when you tried getting fancy with it, to boot.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

Last time I checked "big heavy block" is a pretty solid description of poor aerodynamics.
FFS, do you have OCD or something? I've explained that into the fucking ground.
I don't even like talking about this point because it seems like we're intensely misunderstanding each other. I cannot comprehend how you can say it was a brick but it was maneuverable brick.

FEOS wrote:

I'm not knocking anything. Now as for some of the guys who transitioned from F-4s to F-16s...
That darn ellipsis, keeping me from what I want to know.

FEOS wrote:

The point being that your point is moot. Multiple studies have shown that the Vietnamese pilots were well-trained, skilled aviators.
So? They had a few good pilots. It's not like every soldier North Korea sent at us was a pansy with no training. The point remains that at no point was the overall strength of the North Vietnamese remotely comparable to the overall strength of the US.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

You are the one that said "But with upgrades to its engines, radar, armament, and avionics, [the Phantom II] is still on par with many fourth-gen fighters out there." Either you don't know what fourth gen means, or you're pointlessly stating the obvious - that the F-4 is "on par" with some fighters of the early, early fourth gen. An F-4 would still have its ass handed to it by many non US fourth gen fighters.
FM, I know exactly what fourth gen means, or else I wouldn't have said it. I find it rather humorous that you think you can have that battle of wits with me. It's cute.

Yes, the modern F-4 would have its ass handed to it by many non-US 4th gen fighters. On the other hand, it would readily handle many of the non-US 4th-gen fighters out there...just as I said.
I fail to understand how what you said has any meaning then. It wins some it loses some...that makes it "quite an engineering feat"?
2010-04-16 17:55:24
pace51
Boom?
+194|5385|Markham, Ontario
Whose winning this debate? Feos or FM?
2010-04-16 19:00:46
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6622|'Murka

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Note the numbers for 20mm gun kills compared to other means. The lack of the gun was idiotic, but it hardly accounted for the majority of the kills, even after it was added.
Did I say "majority of kills"? No.
"and also shows that the plane was actually a pretty good dogfighter, as it was shooting down MiGs up close with guns."
This makes no sense in the context that the plane shot down less than 30 planes with the cannon. Even with the cannon, it wasn't a good dog fighter.
That's because the tactics of the time were focused on missile engagements. They didn't like to get into furballs with MiGs because that was the MiGs' strength. But dogfights are more than just that. Hence the high number of sidewinder kills. Most sidewinder kills were 1-3 nm shots, if not sub-1nm engagements. Even today (with guns), the focus is on missiles, with guns as an absolute LAST resort. The same was even more true then, as the aircrews had even less gunnery training. But that is beside the point. The air vehicle still has to maneuver into position to take the sidewinder shot, and that position is a tail-lagging position (for that timeframe). With cannon, you have more flexibility for a wider variety of shots during dogfighting--no need for a rear-aspect view for the high-bloom IR for the sidewinder. It takes more maneuvering and skill to get into the right position to get off a successful sidewinder shot for the missiles of that time (they had a very narrow success window). The high number of sidewinder kills tells me the opposite of what it tells you.

But then again, I have a bit more experience to draw on to help me understand that.

FM wrote:

The plane was made to go really fast, and that's all it did. At the expense of maneuverability. If I remember right it had a nasty habit of going into a death spin when you tried getting fancy with it, to boot.
Most maneuverable planes do this, as they are designed to be inherently aerodynamically unstable. That's what makes them maneuverable.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

Last time I checked "big heavy block" is a pretty solid description of poor aerodynamics.
FFS, do you have OCD or something? I've explained that into the fucking ground.
I don't even like talking about this point because it seems like we're intensely misunderstanding each other. I cannot comprehend how you can say it was a brick but it was maneuverable brick.
I also said it was as ugly as a bowling shoe. Bowling shoes aren't very maneuverable either. Are you going to latch onto that methapor, as well?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm not knocking anything. Now as for some of the guys who transitioned from F-4s to F-16s...
That darn ellipsis, keeping me from what I want to know.
Obvious is obvious. Former F-4 pilots transitioned to other airframes, many of which were F-16s (which took over the wild weasel mission when the F-4Gs were retired). To a man, they screamed for the F-15E to get the mission instead. Said the Viper was inadequate to the task. Didn't have the power, toughness, range, payload, avionics, extra crew position, etc to perform the mission as effectively. Guys who went from "regular" F-4s to "regular" F-16s complained about all the above, as well. Yes, the F-16 was more maneuverable, but maneuverability can be made up for with tactics in most cases.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The point being that your point is moot. Multiple studies have shown that the Vietnamese pilots were well-trained, skilled aviators.
So? They had a few good pilots. It's not like every soldier North Korea sent at us was a pansy with no training. The point remains that at no point was the overall strength of the North Vietnamese remotely comparable to the overall strength of the US.
They had more than a few good pilots. That's like saying the US or Russia had a few good pilots.

And you're right, at no point was the overall strength of the NVAF remotely comparable to the overall strength of the USAF. We had better planes. Like the F-4.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

You are the one that said "But with upgrades to its engines, radar, armament, and avionics, [the Phantom II] is still on par with many fourth-gen fighters out there." Either you don't know what fourth gen means, or you're pointlessly stating the obvious - that the F-4 is "on par" with some fighters of the early, early fourth gen. An F-4 would still have its ass handed to it by many non US fourth gen fighters.
FM, I know exactly what fourth gen means, or else I wouldn't have said it. I find it rather humorous that you think you can have that battle of wits with me. It's cute.

Yes, the modern F-4 would have its ass handed to it by many non-US 4th gen fighters. On the other hand, it would readily handle many of the non-US 4th-gen fighters out there...just as I said.
I fail to understand how what you said has any meaning then. It wins some it loses some...that makes it "quite an engineering feat"?
It was an engineering feat for its time. When it was built, it was the most advanced thing flying. The fact that it's still around--as a fighter--some 50 years on shows that. Just like the B-52 and C-130. They too are amazing aircraft that have stood the test of time and performed well beyond what anyone expected when they were built.

Any fighter (to include 5th gen) has strengths and weaknesses. Those can be leveraged or exploited for good or ill (see youtube footage of F-22 in F-18E's gun pipper). No jet is invincible. An F-4 in the hands of a highly skilled pilot with comparable avionics and weapons will pwn a nub in an F-16. It may get sporty if it ever gets to the merge, but it likely wouldn't. Even then, I'd put my money on the Rhino with the vet at the stick.

Last edited by FEOS (2010-04-16 19:02:05)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-16 20:37:15
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6918|67.222.138.85

FEOS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Note the numbers for 20mm gun kills compared to other means. The lack of the gun was idiotic, but it hardly accounted for the majority of the kills, even after it was added.
Did I say "majority of kills"? No.
"and also shows that the plane was actually a pretty good dogfighter, as it was shooting down MiGs up close with guns."
This makes no sense in the context that the plane shot down less than 30 planes with the cannon. Even with the cannon, it wasn't a good dog fighter.
That's because the tactics of the time were focused on missile engagements. They didn't like to get into furballs with MiGs because that was the MiGs' strength. But dogfights are more than just that. Hence the high number of sidewinder kills. Most sidewinder kills were 1-3 nm shots, if not sub-1nm engagements. Even today (with guns), the focus is on missiles, with guns as an absolute LAST resort. The same was even more true then, as the aircrews had even less gunnery training. But that is beside the point. The air vehicle still has to maneuver into position to take the sidewinder shot, and that position is a tail-lagging position (for that timeframe). With cannon, you have more flexibility for a wider variety of shots during dogfighting--no need for a rear-aspect view for the high-bloom IR for the sidewinder. It takes more maneuvering and skill to get into the right position to get off a successful sidewinder shot for the missiles of that time (they had a very narrow success window). The high number of sidewinder kills tells me the opposite of what it tells you.

But then again, I have a bit more experience to draw on to help me understand that.
The high number of sidewinder kills tells you only that those are the tactics of the time - exactly what you said, none of which I am disputing.

Absolute kills are meaningless, relative kills is what is important. It would be awesome to know how many MiGs were in Vietnam, how many F-4s, how many killed each. We just don't have that information.

In its absence, looking at numbers like the Navy credits 40 air victories by the F-4 while 53 were lost in accidents, the F-4 being called "the Flying Anvil", and the obvious emphasis even from just looking at the chassis of thrust over wing surface area that would have let it be a solid fighter there is no way this thing could reasonably be called a marvel of engineering. It filled its role grudgingly - it hardly exceeded expectations.


FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

The plane was made to go really fast, and that's all it did. At the expense of maneuverability. If I remember right it had a nasty habit of going into a death spin when you tried getting fancy with it, to boot.
Most maneuverable planes do this, as they are designed to be inherently aerodynamically unstable. That's what makes them maneuverable.
Except that most planes have a half decent chance of getting out of the spin too. The F-4 would go into a spin because it was designed poorly, not because it was designed as a fighter should be.

If I remember right the F-16 was the first (warplane at least) to be designed so that it was more unstable than stable (dunno the term) - that's an engineering feat.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

Last time I checked "big heavy block" is a pretty solid description of poor aerodynamics.
FFS, do you have OCD or something? I've explained that into the fucking ground.
I don't even like talking about this point because it seems like we're intensely misunderstanding each other. I cannot comprehend how you can say it was a brick but it was maneuverable brick.
I also said it was as ugly as a bowling shoe. Bowling shoes aren't very maneuverable either. Are you going to latch onto that methapor, as well?
I don't care how ugly it is. That is clearly not the point. Nice dodge.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm not knocking anything. Now as for some of the guys who transitioned from F-4s to F-16s...
That darn ellipsis, keeping me from what I want to know.
Obvious is obvious. Former F-4 pilots transitioned to other airframes, many of which were F-16s (which took over the wild weasel mission when the F-4Gs were retired). To a man, they screamed for the F-15E to get the mission instead. Said the Viper was inadequate to the task. Didn't have the power, toughness, range, payload, avionics, extra crew position, etc to perform the mission as effectively. Guys who went from "regular" F-4s to "regular" F-16s complained about all the above, as well. Yes, the F-16 was more maneuverable, but maneuverability can be made up for with tactics in most cases.
So they said the big bro Eagle should take the mission instead...but that has nothing to do with the Phantom II. The question is are they really going to trade the F-16 for the F-4. I mean really?

Yeah but why make up for it if you don't have to? Why not maneuverability and tactics? What made the F-4 better than everything else? Even most else?

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The point being that your point is moot. Multiple studies have shown that the Vietnamese pilots were well-trained, skilled aviators.
So? They had a few good pilots. It's not like every soldier North Korea sent at us was a pansy with no training. The point remains that at no point was the overall strength of the North Vietnamese remotely comparable to the overall strength of the US.
They had more than a few good pilots. That's like saying the US or Russia had a few good pilots.

And you're right, at no point was the overall strength of the NVAF remotely comparable to the overall strength of the USAF. We had better planes. Like the F-4.
We had more planes anyways.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:


FM, I know exactly what fourth gen means, or else I wouldn't have said it. I find it rather humorous that you think you can have that battle of wits with me. It's cute.

Yes, the modern F-4 would have its ass handed to it by many non-US 4th gen fighters. On the other hand, it would readily handle many of the non-US 4th-gen fighters out there...just as I said.
I fail to understand how what you said has any meaning then. It wins some it loses some...that makes it "quite an engineering feat"?
It was an engineering feat for its time. When it was built, it was the most advanced thing flying. The fact that it's still around--as a fighter--some 50 years on shows that. Just like the B-52 and C-130. They too are amazing aircraft that have stood the test of time and performed well beyond what anyone expected when they were built.

Any fighter (to include 5th gen) has strengths and weaknesses. Those can be leveraged or exploited for good or ill (see youtube footage of F-22 in F-18E's gun pipper). No jet is invincible. An F-4 in the hands of a highly skilled pilot with comparable avionics and weapons will pwn a nub in an F-16. It may get sporty if it ever gets to the merge, but it likely wouldn't. Even then, I'd put my money on the Rhino with the vet at the stick.
Not for us. Not for some time.

"The most advanced thing flying" doesn't mean it was good. It certainly doesn't mean it could have been a lot better. The F-22 is a feat of engineering, it's leagues in front of the competition. The F-4 was not even close.

Only an idiot would put their money on the noob with the hardware. But then that's an idiotic variable when you're talking about aircraft.

-

I was thinking, what would you say the three worst US fighters of all time are?
2010-04-17 00:11:13
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6886|Canberra, AUS
i would point out that fm is now... breaking posts down quote-by-quote
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-17 00:14:21
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6918|67.222.138.85
yeah I know, I died a little inside
2010-04-17 00:41:23
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5685|Ventura, California
Ok I am totally lost, FM and FEOS, what are you even debating about? What's the big issue?

Is it:

- The F4 was a "brick" with rockets strapped onto it?
- The F4 had shit weaponry and the U.S. should have given it a gun from the get-go?
- Some other issue you need to mention.

My point being, I don't see your point, your debate is going nowhere.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2010-04-17 02:48:53
mkxiii
online bf2s mek evasion
+509|6448|Uk
It was a plane built out of necessity, not one that was built to push the boundaries and exploit the laws of aviation in new ways.

not an "feat of engineering".

is a Transit Van a feat of engineering because it manages to complete the tasks it was built for? no because its tasks are relatively simple compared to what you can push automotive transport to do, such as have the aerodynamics and sheer power of a Veyron etc.
2010-04-17 02:51:17
mr.hrundi
Wurstwassereis
+68|6649|Germany
German Luftwaffe still has some of these oldies in service if I'm not mistaken...
2010-04-17 02:52:32
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|6779|NYC / Hamburg

mr.hrundi wrote:

German Luftwaffe still has some of these oldies in service if I'm not mistaken...
They do.
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
2010-04-17 03:04:17
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5685|Ventura, California
Yet they sold their MiG29s for 1€ to some crappy air force somewhere.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2010-04-17 05:18:10
User007Gamer
???
+21|6194|Dubai, UAE
They sold them to Poland.
2010-04-17 15:33:04
pace51
Boom?
+194|5385|Markham, Ontario
FEOS and FM, I am offiicially nominating you for the quarrel of the year award, if we have one this year. I hope you guys win.
2010-04-17 15:39:16
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6211|Vortex Ring State

Spark wrote:

i would point out that fm is now... breaking posts down quote-by-quote
beat me to it, dammit.

I support FEOS.
2010-04-17 15:45:52
pace51
Boom?
+194|5385|Markham, Ontario

Trotskygrad wrote:

Spark wrote:

i would point out that fm is now... breaking posts down quote-by-quote
beat me to it, dammit.

I support FEOS.
Personally, I support FM's point of view, but still think that its an excellent fighter. It wasn't that bad, FM. After all, it wasn't another yak-36 forger. This baby performed.
2010-04-17 22:31:26
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6926|US
The F4 is an energy fighter, not a maneuver fighter.  If you get in a dogfight vs. something like a MiG-17/19, go vertical!  It worked very well for Cunningham (although one Ballsy MiG driver nearly kept up)!

A big problem in Vietnam was the training our pilots recieved.  They trained for intercept missions, mostly.  If they did practice dogfighting, it was almost never against dissimilar aircraft.  We figured this out near the end of the war, but it bit us pretty hard.  10.1:1 in Korea, something like 3:1 in Vietnam...
2010-04-18 02:54:32
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|6779|NYC / Hamburg

max wrote:

mr.hrundi wrote:

German Luftwaffe still has some of these oldies in service if I'm not mistaken...
They do.
https://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s202/CrazyCavia/ETNT/3801.jpg
https://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/nigelf/IMG_0950b.jpg
Fresh pictures from Brilliant Ardent 2010. Anyone know if the exercise is canceled due to the volcano? Is the flight ban for military planes too?

Last edited by max (2010-04-18 02:56:35)

once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
2010-04-19 05:18:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6622|'Murka

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The high number of sidewinder kills tells you only that those are the tactics of the time - exactly what you said, none of which I am disputing.

Absolute kills are meaningless, relative kills is what is important. It would be awesome to know how many MiGs were in Vietnam, how many F-4s, how many killed each. We just don't have that information.
The number of MiGs in Vietnam vs the number of F-4s in Vietnam is irrelevant. What is important is the number of kills of MiGs by F-4s vs the number of kills of F-4s by MiGs in Vietnam.

FM wrote:

In its absence, looking at numbers like the Navy credits 40 air victories by the F-4 while 53 were lost in accidents, the F-4 being called "the Flying Anvil", and the obvious emphasis even from just looking at the chassis of thrust over wing surface area that would have let it be a solid fighter there is no way this thing could reasonably be called a marvel of engineering. It filled its role grudgingly - it hardly exceeded expectations.
That sentence shows you have no idea what you're talking about. We lose aircraft in accidents all the time. It is an inherently dangerous business. Particularly fighter aircraft. Particularly naval fighter aircraft.

And the statement "...the obvious emphasis even from just looking at the chassis of thrust over wing surface area that would have let it be a solid fighter..." makes absolutely no sense. What are you trying to say? Are you trying to talk about wing loading? Body lift? What?

FM wrote:

Except that most planes have a half decent chance of getting out of the spin too. The F-4 would go into a spin because it was designed poorly, not because it was designed as a fighter should be.
You're going to have to provide something to back that statement up, FM.

FM wrote:

If I remember right the F-16 was the first (warplane at least) to be designed so that it was more unstable than stable (dunno the term) - that's an engineering feat.
The F-16 could be designed to be more inherently unstable than others because computers were available to allow the flight control systems that enabled it to fly. If not for the triple-redundant FCS, the F-16 could not stay in the air--it is too unstable.

FM wrote:

I don't care how ugly it is. That is clearly not the point. Nice dodge.
It's not a fucking dodge. It doesn't matter how much or how little you care about how ugly it is--it was, however, what I was saying from the fucking beginning.

FM wrote:

So they said the big bro Eagle should take the mission instead...but that has nothing to do with the Phantom II. The question is are they really going to trade the F-16 for the F-4. I mean really?
They said they wanted the F-4 instead of the F-16.

Was that not clear enough? But the F-4 had been retired. The only options available for the mission after the F-4 was retired were the F-15E and the F-16. Their first pick would've been not to retire the F-4. Second pick would've been to use the Mud Hen for the mission, as it had comparable range, payload, a second crew member, two engines, speed, etc.

Considering that they flew the mission with F-4Gs in packages with F-15Es and F-16s during DESERT STORM already, why stop a good thing? It worked, and it worked well.

FM wrote:

Yeah but why make up for it if you don't have to? Why not maneuverability and tactics? What made the F-4 better than everything else? Even most else?
Because when you "make up for it", you're always giving up something else. Workarounds are never the best solution.

I already explained what made the F-4 better in the WW role than the others--in the minds of those who flew both.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

So? They had a few good pilots. It's not like every soldier North Korea sent at us was a pansy with no training. The point remains that at no point was the overall strength of the North Vietnamese remotely comparable to the overall strength of the US.
They had more than a few good pilots. That's like saying the US or Russia had a few good pilots.

And you're right, at no point was the overall strength of the NVAF remotely comparable to the overall strength of the USAF. We had better planes. Like the F-4.
We had more planes anyways.
Read more. You seriously have no clue what you're talking about. You really need to do some research.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It was an engineering feat for its time. When it was built, it was the most advanced thing flying. The fact that it's still around--as a fighter--some 50 years on shows that. Just like the B-52 and C-130. They too are amazing aircraft that have stood the test of time and performed well beyond what anyone expected when they were built.

Any fighter (to include 5th gen) has strengths and weaknesses. Those can be leveraged or exploited for good or ill (see youtube footage of F-22 in F-18E's gun pipper). No jet is invincible. An F-4 in the hands of a highly skilled pilot with comparable avionics and weapons will pwn a nub in an F-16. It may get sporty if it ever gets to the merge, but it likely wouldn't. Even then, I'd put my money on the Rhino with the vet at the stick.
Not for us. Not for some time.

"The most advanced thing flying" doesn't mean it was good. It certainly doesn't mean it could have been a lot better. The F-22 is a feat of engineering, it's leagues in front of the competition. The F-4 was not even close.

Only an idiot would put their money on the noob with the hardware. But then that's an idiotic variable when you're talking about aircraft.

-

I was thinking, what would you say the three worst US fighters of all time are?
Your problem is you're measuring the F-4 by today's standards. You simply can't see the advance that it was for the time that it was fielded. Nor can you see the huge deal that a near 50-year service history is for a fighter. You're totally ignoring fact.

Three worst? There's a very long list of crappy fighters that the US put out, most probably in the early days of flight (both early prop and early jet). The list of crappy ones is far longer than the list of great ones, that's for sure...for all countries. But the F-4 is on the latter list.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-19 07:46:28
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6918|67.222.138.85

FEOS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The high number of sidewinder kills tells you only that those are the tactics of the time - exactly what you said, none of which I am disputing.

Absolute kills are meaningless, relative kills is what is important. It would be awesome to know how many MiGs were in Vietnam, how many F-4s, how many killed each. We just don't have that information.
The number of MiGs in Vietnam vs the number of F-4s in Vietnam is irrelevant. What is important is the number of kills of MiGs by F-4s vs the number of kills of F-4s by MiGs in Vietnam.
A fighter isn't good for ONLY DOGFIGHTING. If you're going to measure the mettle of a fighter you have to look at its performance in a combat theater.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

In its absence, looking at numbers like the Navy credits 40 air victories by the F-4 while 53 were lost in accidents, the F-4 being called "the Flying Anvil", and the obvious emphasis even from just looking at the chassis of thrust over wing surface area that would have let it be a solid fighter there is no way this thing could reasonably be called a marvel of engineering. It filled its role grudgingly - it hardly exceeded expectations.
That sentence shows you have no idea what you're talking about. We lose aircraft in accidents all the time. It is an inherently dangerous business. Particularly fighter aircraft. Particularly naval fighter aircraft.

And the statement "...the obvious emphasis even from just looking at the chassis of thrust over wing surface area that would have let it be a solid fighter..." makes absolutely no sense. What are you trying to say? Are you trying to talk about wing loading? Body lift? What?
Landing craft on a carrier is no doubt a dangerous business. No doubt a plane that flies like a brick makes things even more difficult.

wing loading

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

Except that most planes have a half decent chance of getting out of the spin too. The F-4 would go into a spin because it was designed poorly, not because it was designed as a fighter should be.
You're going to have to provide something to back that statement up, FM.

wiki wrote:

In air combat, the Phantom's greatest advantage was its thrust, which permitted a skilled pilot to engage and disengage from the fight at will.[38] The massive aircraft, designed to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range, lacked the agility of its Soviet opponents and was subject to adverse yaw during hard maneuvering. Although thus subject to irrecoverable spins during aileron rolls, pilots reported the aircraft to be very communicative and easy to fly on the edge of its performance envelope. In 1972, the F-4E model was upgraded with leading edge slats on the wing, greatly improving high-angle-of-attack maneuverability at the expense of top speed.[39]
From wiki yes, I heard it first on the History channel.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

If I remember right the F-16 was the first (warplane at least) to be designed so that it was more unstable than stable (dunno the term) - that's an engineering feat.
The F-16 could be designed to be more inherently unstable than others because computers were available to allow the flight control systems that enabled it to fly. If not for the triple-redundant FCS, the F-16 could not stay in the air--it is too unstable.
and? You say it like it's a bad thing. It's an impressive feat, especially for when the F-16 was designed. The first time engineering problems are solved that is pretty impressive. The F-4 did nothing of the sort.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

I don't care how ugly it is. That is clearly not the point. Nice dodge.
It's not a fucking dodge. It doesn't matter how much or how little you care about how ugly it is--it was, however, what I was saying from the fucking beginning.
But you didn't call it ugly, you called it a brick. That was the point. I don't know who the fuck you're talking to that thinks "ugly" when they compare a plane to a brick, not a bulky pain in the ass to fly.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

So they said the big bro Eagle should take the mission instead...but that has nothing to do with the Phantom II. The question is are they really going to trade the F-16 for the F-4. I mean really?
They said they wanted the F-4 instead of the F-16.

Was that not clear enough? But the F-4 had been retired. The only options available for the mission after the F-4 was retired were the F-15E and the F-16. Their first pick would've been not to retire the F-4. Second pick would've been to use the Mud Hen for the mission, as it had comparable range, payload, a second crew member, two engines, speed, etc.

Considering that they flew the mission with F-4Gs in packages with F-15Es and F-16s during DESERT STORM already, why stop a good thing? It worked, and it worked well.
Just ridiculous then. That's saying you want an F-16 over an F-22.

Maybe they're just used to it. But don't you think selecting an (at the time of Desert Storm) something like a 30 year old craft over the top of the line might demonstrate their bias? Regardless as to whether or not the F-4 was the king of kings in its day, obsolete is obsolete.



FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

Yeah but why make up for it if you don't have to? Why not maneuverability and tactics? What made the F-4 better than everything else? Even most else?
Because when you "make up for it", you're always giving up something else. Workarounds are never the best solution.

I already explained what made the F-4 better in the WW role than the others--in the minds of those who flew both.
Yeah I know. I think the F-4 is a big workaround. I think it could have been engineered better to make a better craft with little compromise.

Remind me.

FEOS wrote:

Read more. You seriously have no clue what you're talking about. You really need to do some research.
school me

FEOS wrote:

Your problem is you're measuring the F-4 by today's standards. You simply can't see the advance that it was for the time that it was fielded. Nor can you see the huge deal that a near 50-year service history is for a fighter. You're totally ignoring fact.

Three worst? There's a very long list of crappy fighters that the US put out, most probably in the early days of flight (both early prop and early jet). The list of crappy ones is far longer than the list of great ones, that's for sure...for all countries. But the F-4 is on the latter list.
What was the advance? What did the F-4 do that was done better than before? A huge engine? I give credit to the people who designed the engine, but the box around it? Not so much.

Three worst jet fighters then. Narrows done the list substantially.
2010-04-20 03:38:03
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6622|'Murka

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The high number of sidewinder kills tells you only that those are the tactics of the time - exactly what you said, none of which I am disputing.

Absolute kills are meaningless, relative kills is what is important. It would be awesome to know how many MiGs were in Vietnam, how many F-4s, how many killed each. We just don't have that information.
The number of MiGs in Vietnam vs the number of F-4s in Vietnam is irrelevant. What is important is the number of kills of MiGs by F-4s vs the number of kills of F-4s by MiGs in Vietnam.
A fighter isn't good for ONLY DOGFIGHTING. If you're going to measure the mettle of a fighter you have to look at its performance in a combat theater.
I was wondering if you were going to bring that up. Now you're looking at multi-role performance, not just dogfighting. You're changing the argument, and not in your favor. The F-4 was fucking exquisite as a bombing platform, particularly with the introduction of PGMs, since it had the backseater. In fact, the first use of the LGB was by the F-4 in Vietnam.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

In its absence, looking at numbers like the Navy credits 40 air victories by the F-4 while 53 were lost in accidents, the F-4 being called "the Flying Anvil", and the obvious emphasis even from just looking at the chassis of thrust over wing surface area that would have let it be a solid fighter there is no way this thing could reasonably be called a marvel of engineering. It filled its role grudgingly - it hardly exceeded expectations.
That sentence shows you have no idea what you're talking about. We lose aircraft in accidents all the time. It is an inherently dangerous business. Particularly fighter aircraft. Particularly naval fighter aircraft.

And the statement "...the obvious emphasis even from just looking at the chassis of thrust over wing surface area that would have let it be a solid fighter..." makes absolutely no sense. What are you trying to say? Are you trying to talk about wing loading? Body lift? What?
Landing craft on a carrier is no doubt a dangerous business. No doubt a plane that flies like a brick makes things even more difficult.
It didn't fly like a brick.

It looked like a fucking brick. With wings. And big engines.

Aesthetics =/= performance.

Learn the difference.

FM wrote:

wing loading

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

Except that most planes have a half decent chance of getting out of the spin too. The F-4 would go into a spin because it was designed poorly, not because it was designed as a fighter should be.
You're going to have to provide something to back that statement up, FM.

wiki wrote:

In air combat, the Phantom's greatest advantage was its thrust, which permitted a skilled pilot to engage and disengage from the fight at will.[38] The massive aircraft, designed to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range, lacked the agility of its Soviet opponents and was subject to adverse yaw during hard maneuvering. Although thus subject to irrecoverable spins during aileron rolls, pilots reported the aircraft to be very communicative and easy to fly on the edge of its performance envelope. In 1972, the F-4E model was upgraded with leading edge slats on the wing, greatly improving high-angle-of-attack maneuverability at the expense of top speed.[39]
From wiki yes, I heard it first on the History channel.
OK. So it was "very communicative and easy to fly on the edge of its performance envelope" but "was subject to irrecoverable spins during aileron rolls" due to "adverse yaw during hard maneuvering". All of which the pilots would be trained to deal with when learning to fly and employ. And again, was not considered an issue if you look at the original employment concept for the F-4 for which it was designed, which was to take on large bomber formations.

Let's compare that to its primary adversary, the MiG-21:

wikipedia wrote:

Like many aircraft designed as interceptors, the MiG-21 had a short range. This was not helped by a design defect where the center of gravity shifted rearwards once two-thirds of the fuel had been used. This had the effect of making the plane uncontrollable, resulting in an endurance of only 45 minutes in clean condition. The issue of the short endurance and low fuel capacity of the MiG-21F, PF, PFM, S/SM and M/MF variants—though each had a somewhat greater fuel capacity than its predecessor—led to the development of the MT and SMT variants. These had a range increase of 250 km (155 mi) compared to the MiG-21SM, but at the cost of worsening all other performance figures (such as a lower service ceiling and slower time to altitude).[1]

The delta wing, while excellent for a fast-climbing interceptor, meant any form of turning combat led to a rapid loss of speed. However, the light loading of the aircraft could mean that a climb rate of 235 m/s (46,250 ft/min) was possible with a combat-loaded MiG-21bis,[1] not far short of the performance of the later F-16A. Given a skilled pilot and capable missiles, it could give a good account of itself against contemporary fighters.
Did you have something to say about wing loading? Because if you did, you must've forgotten to post it.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

If I remember right the F-16 was the first (warplane at least) to be designed so that it was more unstable than stable (dunno the term) - that's an engineering feat.
The F-16 could be designed to be more inherently unstable than others because computers were available to allow the flight control systems that enabled it to fly. If not for the triple-redundant FCS, the F-16 could not stay in the air--it is too unstable.
and? You say it like it's a bad thing. It's an impressive feat, especially for when the F-16 was designed. The first time engineering problems are solved that is pretty impressive.
I never said it wasn't impressive. It is quite an impressive engineering feat.

FM wrote:

The F-4 did nothing of the sort.

wikipedia wrote:

All in all, the Phantom set 16 world records. With the exception of Skyburner, all records were achieved in unmodified production aircraft. Five of the speed records remained unbeaten until the F-15 Eagle appeared in 1975.
Nope. I guess it didn't.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

I don't care how ugly it is. That is clearly not the point. Nice dodge.
It's not a fucking dodge. It doesn't matter how much or how little you care about how ugly it is--it was, however, what I was saying from the fucking beginning.
But you didn't call it ugly, you called it a brick. That was the point. I don't know who the fuck you're talking to that thinks "ugly" when they compare a plane to a brick, not a bulky pain in the ass to fly.
And, as I fucking said repeatedly, in aerodynamic terms, brick equates to ugly. Ugly equates to brick. The saying I used is used within the Phantom community. Among aviators. I'm not surprised a university student doesn't grasp the nuance.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

So they said the big bro Eagle should take the mission instead...but that has nothing to do with the Phantom II. The question is are they really going to trade the F-16 for the F-4. I mean really?
They said they wanted the F-4 instead of the F-16.

Was that not clear enough? But the F-4 had been retired. The only options available for the mission after the F-4 was retired were the F-15E and the F-16. Their first pick would've been not to retire the F-4. Second pick would've been to use the Mud Hen for the mission, as it had comparable range, payload, a second crew member, two engines, speed, etc.

Considering that they flew the mission with F-4Gs in packages with F-15Es and F-16s during DESERT STORM already, why stop a good thing? It worked, and it worked well.
Just ridiculous then. That's saying you want an F-16 over an F-22.

Maybe they're just used to it. But don't you think selecting an (at the time of Desert Storm) something like a 30 year old craft over the top of the line might demonstrate their bias? Regardless as to whether or not the F-4 was the king of kings in its day, obsolete is obsolete.
No, it's not. It's saying you want the plane that's best for the job. That's saying you want the F-15E over the F-22. And maybe you DO want the F-16 over the F-22 for a given mission. There are plenty that the Raptor is not suited to.

I'm not saying the F-4 is the kind of kings today. Never even implied it. It is clearly obsolete today. You, however, said it was shit then. That is where you are wrong and where our opinions clearly differ. And where the facts leave you far, far behind.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

Yeah but why make up for it if you don't have to? Why not maneuverability and tactics? What made the F-4 better than everything else? Even most else?
Because when you "make up for it", you're always giving up something else. Workarounds are never the best solution.

I already explained what made the F-4 better in the WW role than the others--in the minds of those who flew both.
Yeah I know. I think the F-4 is a big workaround. I think it could have been engineered better to make a better craft with little compromise.

Remind me.
The Viper has less range, payload, avionics, one less crewmember to deal with the EW aspect, can't take the same amount of damage, isn't as fast...shall I continue?

Interesting that you--with all your aerospace engineering and aviation experience--think that. Perhaps you should submit a white paper or something.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Read more. You seriously have no clue what you're talking about. You really need to do some research.
school me
That's pretty much what I've been doing the last several days. And it's getting kind of old, tbh.

Don't you have a philosophy class to get to? Because I have a USAF squadron to go direct the operations of.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your problem is you're measuring the F-4 by today's standards. You simply can't see the advance that it was for the time that it was fielded. Nor can you see the huge deal that a near 50-year service history is for a fighter. You're totally ignoring fact.

Three worst? There's a very long list of crappy fighters that the US put out, most probably in the early days of flight (both early prop and early jet). The list of crappy ones is far longer than the list of great ones, that's for sure...for all countries. But the F-4 is on the latter list.
What was the advance? What did the F-4 do that was done better than before? A huge engine? I give credit to the people who designed the engine, but the box around it? Not so much.

Three worst jet fighters then. Narrows done the list substantially.
Ever? Or during a given era?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-20 03:41:47
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6317|eXtreme to the maX

pace51 wrote:

FEOS and FM, I am offiicially nominating you for the quarrel of the year award, if we have one this year. I hope you guys win.
Seconded.
Fuck Israel
2010-04-20 04:38:42
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6685|Kakanien

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Yet they sold their MiG29s for 1€ to some crappy air force somewhere.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/DeutschMiG-29G%28DF-SD-05-07712%29.jpg

mig-29 over the gulf of mexico. man the flak!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0
2010-04-20 12:01:24
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6918|67.222.138.85

FEOS wrote:

I was wondering if you were going to bring that up. Now you're looking at multi-role performance, not just dogfighting. You're changing the argument, and not in your favor. The F-4 was fucking exquisite as a bombing platform, particularly with the introduction of PGMs, since it had the backseater. In fact, the first use of the LGB was by the F-4 in Vietnam.
I know it is not in my favor, but the point is accuracy. Though I am not really changing the argument either, you are the one that implied I was only talking about its dogfighting ability because I was pointing out its flaws. No reason to mention something it did sufficiently.

Of course being a bombing platform isn't entirely difficult. You fly real fast, have the ability to be really heavy so you can carry lots of bombs, be able to be even heavier so you can carry two people instead of one...oh wait that's exactly what the Phantom does, at the expense of maneuverability.

FEOS wrote:

It didn't fly like a brick.

It looked like a fucking brick. With wings. And big engines.

Aesthetics =/= performance.

Learn the difference.
I do not care at all about aesthetics. What I cannot possibly comprehend is the level of bullshit it takes to say aviators use the word "brick" to describe an ugly plane, not a plane with poor performance as it is used here in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Can you give me one other person that uses the term like that?

FEOS wrote:

OK. So it was "very communicative and easy to fly on the edge of its performance envelope" but "was subject to irrecoverable spins during aileron rolls" due to "adverse yaw during hard maneuvering". All of which the pilots would be trained to deal with when learning to fly and employ. And again, was not considered an issue if you look at the original employment concept for the F-4 for which it was designed, which was to take on large bomber formations.

Let's compare that to its primary adversary, the MiG-21:

wikipedia wrote:

Like many aircraft designed as interceptors, the MiG-21 had a short range. This was not helped by a design defect where the center of gravity shifted rearwards once two-thirds of the fuel had been used. This had the effect of making the plane uncontrollable, resulting in an endurance of only 45 minutes in clean condition. The issue of the short endurance and low fuel capacity of the MiG-21F, PF, PFM, S/SM and M/MF variants—though each had a somewhat greater fuel capacity than its predecessor—led to the development of the MT and SMT variants. These had a range increase of 250 km (155 mi) compared to the MiG-21SM, but at the cost of worsening all other performance figures (such as a lower service ceiling and slower time to altitude).[1]

The delta wing, while excellent for a fast-climbing interceptor, meant any form of turning combat led to a rapid loss of speed. However, the light loading of the aircraft could mean that a climb rate of 235 m/s (46,250 ft/min) was possible with a combat-loaded MiG-21bis,[1] not far short of the performance of the later F-16A. Given a skilled pilot and capable missiles, it could give a good account of itself against contemporary fighters.
The bolded part is why the F-4 was not a military engineering success. The role it was designed for was flawed, and made for severe miscalculations in the design requirements. The lack of an internal gun is just one example of such a flaw - that one was fairly easily rectified yes, but it demonstrates a mode of thinking that permeated the design of the airplane. It would be great if the primary use was for large bombing formations, with air to air encounters handled by tracking missiles that actually worked, but in practice those strengths were not as valuable as were first thought to be. The F-4 was essentially doomed from becoming anything more than sufficient from the start.

The failures of the F-4 have nothing to do with the failures of other aircraft. The aircraft was designed for a circumstance that didn't happen.

FEOS wrote:

Did you have something to say about wing loading? Because if you did, you must've forgotten to post it.
You asked what I meant by "...the obvious emphasis even from just looking at the chassis of thrust over wing surface area that would have let it be a solid fighter...". I meant wing loading.

(in standard because we aren't dirty commies)
Wing loading of F-4: 78 lb/ft²
Wing loading of MiG-19: 61.6 lb/ft²

A huge contribution to why the F-4 wasn't anywhere near as agile as it's MiG counterparts. The 21 was heavier than the 19...but that's exactly why a lot of their pilots preferred the 19.

FEOS wrote:

wikipedia wrote:

All in all, the Phantom set 16 world records. With the exception of Skyburner, all records were achieved in unmodified production aircraft. Five of the speed records remained unbeaten until the F-15 Eagle appeared in 1975.
Nope. I guess it didn't.
Ohhh wooooooow, it set 16 speed and altitude records. "That's a pretty impressive, kid" the SR-71 chuckles.

Seriously, Skunk Works made and introduced into service a fucking Blackbird 4 years after the F-4 did the same. Two different aircraft to be sure. The engineers at Skunk Works still make the people that designed the F-4 look like retards.

FEOS wrote:

No, it's not. It's saying you want the plane that's best for the job. That's saying you want the F-15E over the F-22. And maybe you DO want the F-16 over the F-22 for a given mission. There are plenty that the Raptor is not suited to.

I'm not saying the F-4 is the kind of kings today. Never even implied it. It is clearly obsolete today. You, however, said it was shit then. That is where you are wrong and where our opinions clearly differ. And where the facts leave you far, far behind.
If being not nearly expensive/numerous/expendable is a mission, sure. Or does the Air Force officer want to provide an example?

What, so was it an amazing craft then? King of kings? My first response to you sums it up best:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Considering the amount of money we have dumped into defense spending during and after WWII, it would be a travesty if it wasn't [better than just about everything else, for it's time].

I'm just saying this wasn't exactly our finest moment in engineering.
---


FEOS wrote:

The Viper has less range, payload, avionics, one less crewmember to deal with the EW aspect, can't take the same amount of damage, isn't as fast...shall I continue?

Interesting that you--with all your aerospace engineering and aviation experience--think that. Perhaps you should submit a white paper or something.
Besides

FEOS wrote:

avionics
bullshit

The F-16 was designed to be a cheaper supplement to the Eagle yes?

FEOS wrote:

That's pretty much what I've been doing the last several days. And it's getting kind of old, tbh.

Don't you have a philosophy class to get to? Because I have a USAF squadron to go direct the operations of.
Oh yes your squadron of Phatom IIs...oh wait no we haven't used those in 20 years.

I know it's kind of like an unwritten rule that you have to give a reach-around to past and present military hardware, but just ignoring the flaws is a bit silly.

FEOS wrote:

Ever? Or during a given era?
The era of jet-powered flight. Judged against the scientific advances of the time (but not necessarily against other craft of the time).

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard