F-8 Crusader vs MiG-17 in Vietnam

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Thanks Gocad, that makes sense. I assumed driver and gold ballast were equally "trained." ie...the Ideal air crew for TheSims forum discussion. I enjoy the way Pilot put it last page...

 

Yes, in ALL cases training is paramount. But the only way to do a machine to machine comparison is to ignore pilot ability, so it's pointless to even bring up.

 

I probably need an F8U-3 thread (apologies to Streak). I recently got US Naval Air Superiority book by Thomason, but have not got there yet. Still mired in the Demon chapter, but not complaining because that is very interesing. Need F4D vs F3H thread. It never ends.

[+streakeagle 871]

Show me the data from the manufacturer or NASA that shows F-8 turn performance at specific heights, loadouts, and speed ranges before claiming how it was more maneuverable. I have have never seen more than pilot anecdotes. Anecotes can't accurately specify heights, speeds, weights, or how well each pilot hit their aircraft's performance sweet spot whle denying the opposition his. Plenty of pilots from WW2 will tell you how plane x was better than plane y during one or more of their engagements while another group of pilots will tell you they experienced exactly the opposite. From the cockpit in a close-in dogfight, pilots cannot accurately ascertain angular rates, velocity vectors, or even ranges, much less specific excess power or other key ACM parameters. They are too busy fighting for their life to act as flight test data collectors. In certain specific geometries and initial conditions, a more agile aircraft will appear or even actually be out turned by a less agile aircraft. Likewise, a less powerful, slower aircraft may appear or even actually out accelerate or out climb a much more powerful, faster aircraft. Aircraft performance cannot be estimated accurately enough to compare relatively similar aircraft based on weights, sea level static thrust, stall speed, max speed, etc. Even detailed wind tunnel data doesn't fill in all the blanks. It takes carefully collected flight test data to draw valid conclusions. Air combat ranges like Red Flag measure all this data then replay it for all pilots involved so everyone can learn what really happened instead of just what they thought they saw.

 

The F-8 wasn't even close to being optimized for ACM. Was it as maneuverable as an F-86 or MiG-17? Did it have a bubble canopy? Like all post WW2 jet fighters until the F-16, it was designed for speed and climb first at the cost of maneuverability. The F-8's wings were clearly swept for speed. For comparison, the F/A-18's nearly straight wings are far more optimized for ACM. Its swept wing and high wing loading gave it landing characteristics that were absolutely terrible, even worse than the F-4 despite having the variable incidence wing (which really only enhanced visibility by lowering the nose and screwed up manually moving the engine throttle to vary rate of descent). Above landing speeds it was a lot more stable than the F-4 at combat AoA, but that came from not being designed to fly Mach 2+. So, the F-8 gave up supersonic drag and a bit of power-to-weight to have a less delta like wing which meant a bit less induced drag. Now, did the savings in drag overcome the lower power-to-weight? Ps charts partially answer this, but it would really be nice if Vought had provided tables in the same format as the F-4. The one envelope you get from an F-8 pilot's manual is the Height-Mach diagram showing the 1g steady state flight envelope, which fits neatly inside the F-4 envelope. Where the F-4 was limited by dynamic pressure and temperature (if had enough excess thrust to go faster than Mach, but without modifications, the engines would melt down if it did), the F-8 was limited by drag (not enough power to exceed Mach 1.5). This implies that at higher altitudes and higher speeds, the F-4 would actually have better sustained turn performance than the F-8 as its lesser power-to-weight was cancelled out by zero-lift drag. Without much better data than is available to me, all I can do is speculate which aircraft would handle better at a given height and speed based on aspect ratio, wing loading, thrust loading, etc. If someone else has better data that can prove my best guesses wrong, feel free to post it here.

 

As for the F8U-3, it was apparently superior to the F-4 in every performance aspect, but the Navy wasn't buying a dog fighter or a drag racer, it wanted the best fleet defence interceptor it could afford to protect its most valuable asset: aircraft carriers. The Navy concluded that for an interceptor to be effective, it had to have the best radar available and carry as many as practical of the best missile available that could be hauled up to high altitude and reach Mach 2 as quickly as possible. Equally important, the Navy decided that the aircraft must have a dedicated radar operator to ensure the narrow windows of time and distance between detection, lock-on, and minimum firing range were not missed. Apparently, the F8U-3 lost the competition because it had only one seat and carried at most 3 Sparrows to the F4H's maximum of 6 Sparrows. The same formula that led to the selection of the F-4 led to the rejection of the Missileer (too slow/underpowered despite having an early version of the AWG-9/Phoenix system). The F-111B almost met the criteria, but it weighed too much and Grumman had leveraged their inside knowleged and newer technology to wrap the engines, radar, and weapons of the F-111B in a lighter package that out performed the F-4 it was to replace in all aspects (F-111B performance was inferior to the F-4 in all ways except speed). The F-14 was the F-4 concept with better radar, better missiles, supposedly better engines (TF30s ended up never being good fighter engines), better cockpit visibility, and variable geometry wings.

 

Notably, the F-14 retained the 2-seat configuration. The Navy was sure that the additional weight of a RIO was a huge advantage in both radar interception siutations and close-in visual range knife fights. The Navy really didn't give up on the fluid four formation, they just made the welded-wingman an integrated part of the element leaders, permanently in formation 1 meter behind them. USN F-4 pilots that successfully utilized their back-seaters had proven their worth. The F-4s had a 2nd set of eyes, which helped greatly in both defensive and offensive situations.

 

Notably, the F-15 reverted to the single seat configuration, which the USAF justified by the digital improvements to radar operation. The USAF never wanted a 2-seat in the first place and waited a long time before doing anything to encourage a good relationship between the pilot and the "navigator" in F-4s. The F-15 was the size and configuration of a heavy interceptor/multirole fighter bomber (like the F-14 and F-4) but retained the single seat and lack of ground attack systems that would be expected in a small lightweight day air superiority fighter. Meanwhile, the small lightweight day fighter, YF-16, was purchased to replace the F-4 as a heavy multirole fighter-bomber. I am I the only person confused by these decisions? In my opinion, USAF leadership criminally negligent in their duties to defend our nation as best as possible within the available budget constraints during the 1960s. The USN did a lot better job of identifying and correcting its mistakes over the same time frame.

 

In 1972, USN F-4s almost exclusively went straight into close range dogfights while USAF F-4s struggled to achieve BVR kills. It is pointless to argue which was more effective, since the most effective course of action would have been to use both. The USAF and USN finally came to this realization after Vietnam was over, working together in the AIMVAL/ACEVAL tests to explore the effectiveness of various weapons and tactics on the outcome of an air combat engagement. What took them so long? Shouldn't this have happened around 1966?

[+streakeagle 871]

Well, look at it this way...decades after their introduction into service, which plane is still in front-line use?

 

Just the F-4. Upgraded, sure, but still the same airframe, and no better a dogfighter today than it was in the 1950s.

 

However, which was the last to serve on carriers? The F-8 for France, years after the US and UK retired their carrier-borne F-4s.

 

I can assure you France would gladly have traded their F-8s for F-14s or a French equivalent. F-4s are still in service because the countries flying them couldn't afford F-15s and F-16s much less F-22s and F-35s. The USAF and USN weren't even permitted to completely replace the F-4 with the F-14 adn F-15. Look at the Navy's budget in the 1960's though. They gladly replaced the F-8 with the F-4, only keeping some F-8s to serve on the smaller carriers. They Navy clearly believed the F-4 was the better fleet defence aircraft and had even learned to use it very well for air superiority, and once the skies were clear, it was a much better bomb truck. Apparently, things haven't changed much. When faced with major budget limitations and forced to pick one aircraft to perform every job, they picked the F/A-18E... a 60-foot long twin-engined aircraft with a 500 ft^2 wing, weighing 30,000 lbs empty, and an optional 2nd seat. Sound familiar? The F-4 actually had a bit more wing area (530 sq ft), but is darn close to having the same dimensions. The F-14 was not only too expensive, but too large and the F/A-18A/B/C/D was too small. The F-4 sized F/A-18E/F was just right. They were quite willing to give up some agility for the size increase, too. By giving up the cost of stealth and improving an existing airframe rather than trying to develop a new one, the Navy got a useful number of new airframes instead of being stuck flying the old ones untily they start breaking in half during ACM training.

[+streakeagle 871]

This assumes a lot of things.

 

It assumes that there are only 2 aircraft in the air. (Or that there are only 2 friendlies and everything else is enemy)

 

It assumes that a BVR shot will hit.

 

It assumes that the Crusader can not hide from the Phantom.

 

It assumes that the Phantom is running clean.

 

It assumes that fuel is not an issue.

 

 

Let's look at it from a more plausible scenario:

 

BVR is great hype, but very limited in usefulness, even today. 99% of the time, you will either be afraid of shooting a friendly, or flat out prevented from BVR by the Rules of Engagement from the top brass. That slashes the F-4s "effectiveness" dramatically.

 

It might be able to run away, but when it does, it's burning fuel at a prodigious rate, and will run dry far sooner than the Crusader will. And when it backs off the burner, it leaves a nice trail behind it to identify it.

 

If the Crusader dives to the weeds, it'll get lost in the clutter and the extending Phantom won't see crap, even if it could get away with a BVR shot.

 

When in close, the vaunted power of the "mighty" J79s can actually only just try to compensate for the F-4's drag and weight and lack of wing. As it tries to manevuer, it will pull greater AoA for a given turn and bleed off more speed, requireing more power. And if you've ever tried it, you'll know that it just doesn't have enough, it bleeds speed at an alarming rate and then you must level off, extend, and show your tail for a heater shot.

 

Likewise, lacking all-aspect IR, the chance of getting a missile shot is next to none in this close in engagement, and even if you get a shot, it's easily evaded. The greatest attribute the Phantom can bring (climb, speed and thrust) is of little to no effect in this case because it lacks a gun, so it can't just run in and shoot the Crusader, unlike the other way around.

 

 

Yes, in ALL cases training is paramount. But the only way to do a machine to machine comparison is to ignore pilot ability, so it's pointless to even bring up.

 

Basically, if the enemy stold some Crusaders, the Phantoms would have to just run away. Granted, they could, so that's a good thing for the Phantom, but it's hardly a victory.

 

Ok, lets flip the coin. Instead of just two aircraft having a fight starting at the ideal range and altitude for the F-4 to win, lets take 4 F-4Bs versu 4 F-8Es all armed with only 4xAIM-9Ds. Are you going to claim that 4 angles fighters will beat 4 energy fighters? Even underpowered, less agile F4F Wildcats could successfully take the skies from A6M Zeroes when flown with mutual support. The agility of the Zero was largely nullified when you used more than 1 vs 1 scenarios. The four F-4s with 2 crewmen each could fight in the vertical, maintian better situational awareness and would probably win. Of course, if the F-8s truly have such awesome agility compared to the F-4, the battle might be a draw until someone runs out of gas and has to try to disengage... Like quite a few of the F-8 kills against MiG-17s (and surely a similar percentage of the F-4 kills). So which aircraft would have better endurance while using lots of afterburner for sustained hard turns and zoom climbs? In Top Gun, F-4 crews were taught to beat souped up A-4s and F-5Es in exactly the same sort of situations (as F-8 crews had already known how to do from the start).

 

As I have never flown either aircraft in reality and can clearly show that the flight modeling in sims like the SF2 series is no basis for comparison, I can only judge by the historical record. Given everything I know, if I had to pick one aircraft to fly in combat any time from 1958 to 1975, it would be whatever the best F-4 variant that was available to me. If my mission might range from ground attack to air superiority, I would lean toward USAF variants as they always had better avionics for bombing in a given time frame while retaining the air-to-air capability. But, if my primary mission was air superiority, clearly, the Navy's access to better AIM-9 variants make the F-4B and F-4J the best choices. The F-4E would be much easier to fly and had a gun, but the F-4J's AWG-10 radar was greatly superior to the F-4E's APQ-120. Unlike the APQ-120, the look down feature actually worked and could find F-8s down in the weeds. While the Navy ultimately admitted that the slats were needed for safety, they never added the internal gun. It wasn't worth the weight, space, vibration, or loss in radar reliability (APQ-120s didn't like being vibrated by 100 rounds per second). SF2 makes the F-4E look better since its radar works just as well as the F-4J in the game, and it has slats and a gun, but consider the fact that in reality, even after the F-4E was widely available in Vietnam, that the F-4D was the aircraft of choice for USAF sweeps and CAP because of its superior radar. The SF series has come a long way, but aside from the slats and gun on the F-4E, all the F-4s seem about the same as long as they have been upgraded with a RWR. But in reality the F-4D was almost as good at ground pounding and a better air superiority aircraft than the F-4E and much better than the F-4B or F-4C in either role... as long as it isn't stuck with AIM-4Ds!

[+streakeagle 871]

Thanks Gocad, that makes sense. I assumed driver and gold ballast were equally "trained." ie...the Ideal air crew for TheSims forum discussion. I enjoy the way Pilot put it last page...

 

 

 

I probably need an F8U-3 thread (apologies to Streak). I recently got US Naval Air Superiority book by Thomason, but have not got there yet. Still mired in the Demon chapter, but not complaining because that is very interesing. Need F4D vs F3H thread. It never ends.

 

While I love the F3H as an ancestor of the F4H, the F4D is simply an elegant aircraft. All tailless deltas have major aerodynamic issues, but they sure look cool. The F3H may look a bit odd, but if it had the engine power and weight it was supposed to have, it would have been a decent design. As things turned out, the F4D was better. But both quickly became irrelavant. Once you have the F-8 and F-4, you have aircraft that are among the best for over a decade instead of just 2 or 3 years (look at all the fighters that came and went between 1945 and 1960!).

 

The point of my thread is not to bash the F-8. Its combat record speaks for itself. I simply disagree with the assessment that it would have been a better choice for the fleet than the F-4, especially based on the idea that it was somehow magically more agile than it really was. For instance, by the numbers, I can show how the F-4 is significantly more maneuverable than the F-4. But Andy Bush is a fighter pilot who flew both extensively. In his opinion, the turn performance differences between the F-4 and the F-104 were negligible. He actually preferred the F-104 and even beat an F-15 in a mock dogfight while flying one. Now does Andy's anecdotes override published data from the manufacturer's? I doubt it. He may have been one of those rare pilots who would win no matter what aircraft he was flying and would be happy with the performance of his aircraft since he was able to win. Steve Ritchie praised the AIM-7E2 and F-4 Phantom, but how many other pilots got the results he did when given the same opportunties with the same equipment? The F-8 pilots in Vietnam were almost the only well trained air-to-air pilots on either side. The USAF had some awesome WW2/Korea veterans mostly at the beginning, and both the USAF and PVAF had some lucky and/or talented newbies, but by far, most of the pilots flying F-4s, MiG-21s, and MiG-17s were inexperienced and poorly trained leading to a lot of missed kill opportunies and/or unnecessary losses. The fact that F-4 pilots who completed Top Gun generally did as well or better than the F-8 pilots make it painfully obvious that you don't win a dogfight because your aircraft turns a little tighter or climbs a little faster, you win it by making better decisions than the enemy in the tradeoff between speed, altitude, and angles given the particular aircraft being employed and the initial conditions.

Edited April 27, 2010 by streakeagle

[+Gocad 26]

I simply disagree with the assessment that it would have been a better choice for the fleet than the F-4, especially based on the idea that it was somehow magically more agile than it really was.

 

Just out of curiosity, where have you read or heard this statement?

Edited April 27, 2010 by Gocad

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Woa Streak that's a bunch to chew on. Thanks for the time spent.

 

Michel in Clashes does tell about crews that were proficient at Sparrow combat, and units that could maintain them. What other Vietnam air books would you recommend? Pre-thanks. Clashes is the only one I've got.

[shotdown 8]

Yes, the multi-mission ability was the F-4's strongest attribute. It's no surprise that the Navy went this direction.

 

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken, US Navy used the Phantom as a pure fighter, so it's not such a big advantage when comparing between US Navy planes.

[rotarycrazy 4]

This assumes a lot of things.

 

It assumes that there are only 2 aircraft in the air. (Or that there are only 2 friendlies and everything else is enemy)

 

It assumes that a BVR shot will hit.

 

It assumes that the Crusader can not hide from the Phantom.

 

It assumes that the Phantom is running clean.

 

It assumes that fuel is not an issue.

 

 

Let's look at it from a more plausible scenario:

 

BVR is great hype, but very limited in usefulness, even today. 99% of the time, you will either be afraid of shooting a friendly, or flat out prevented from BVR by the Rules of Engagement from the top brass. That slashes the F-4s "effectiveness" dramatically.

 

It might be able to run away, but when it does, it's burning fuel at a prodigious rate, and will run dry far sooner than the Crusader will. And when it backs off the burner, it leaves a nice trail behind it to identify it.

 

If the Crusader dives to the weeds, it'll get lost in the clutter and the extending Phantom won't see crap, even if it could get away with a BVR shot.

 

When in close, the vaunted power of the "mighty" J79s can actually only just try to compensate for the F-4's drag and weight and lack of wing. As it tries to manevuer, it will pull greater AoA for a given turn and bleed off more speed, requireing more power. And if you've ever tried it, you'll know that it just doesn't have enough, it bleeds speed at an alarming rate and then you must level off, extend, and show your tail for a heater shot.

 

Likewise, lacking all-aspect IR, the chance of getting a missile shot is next to none in this close in engagement, and even if you get a shot, it's easily evaded. The greatest attribute the Phantom can bring (climb, speed and thrust) is of little to no effect in this case because it lacks a gun, so it can't just run in and shoot the Crusader, unlike the other way around.

 

 

Yes, in ALL cases training is paramount. But the only way to do a machine to machine comparison is to ignore pilot ability, so it's pointless to even bring up.

 

Basically, if the enemy stold some Crusaders, the Phantoms would have to just run away. Granted, they could, so that's a good thing for the Phantom, but it's hardly a victory.

 

 

I think streakeagle cover most of what I was trying to say

[Derk 265]

Pffft Streak Eagle, but hats off, you sort of produced a complete dissertation on the subject !!!!

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

[UnknownPilot 33]

A lot of animosity toward the F-8 here, clearly.

 

No need for NASA and all that other stuff. F-4: 78lbs/sq.ft, F-8: 77lbs/sq.ft. F-4: low wing, F-8: shoulder wing.

 

A high or shoulder mounted wing provides greater lift by incorporating the fuselage (because lift comes from the top of the wing). This is why Anthony Fokker went from 3.25 wings down to just 1 parasol wing (Dr.1 to D.VIII), and why McDonnell went from low wings to a high wing (Voodoo/Phantom to Eagle), and why the F-22, F-35, F-16, F-14, MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-23, and just about any other post Vietnam design you can think of has high mounted wings.

 

Lift to drag is better for the Crusader as well. 12.8 vs 8.58. This generally will mean greater E retention throughout the envelope.

 

 

Finally, you mention pilot anecdotes, the one of the Crusader pilot that transitioned is the one to actually look at. For 2 reasons - hard data isn't necessary because on the one hand, it's direct compention between the 2 (mock dogfight), and on the other hand, one pilot switched and had first hand experience to see the differences.

 

Ok, hang with me here. What does a non-trained person do when put into a dogfight situation? They TURN. What happened when the non-ACM trained Phantom crews tried to fight the Crusaders? They got creamed. What happened when one Crusader pilot transitioned? At first he understood why (ie, higher drag, less turn), but later felt the power it had could have made it a threat. In the end, as we are talking strictly about turning here, this shows what is seen above, here, that the Crusader turned better than the Phantom, even though it was still no MiG-17. (and that doesn't mean Extra 300 vs 747 either, so take a deep breath and relax....)

[UnknownPilot 33]

Ok, lets flip the coin. Instead of just two aircraft having a fight starting at the ideal range and altitude for the F-4 to win, lets take 4 F-4Bs versu 4 F-8Es all armed with only 4xAIM-9Ds. Are you going to claim that 4 angles fighters will beat 4 energy fighters? Even underpowered, less agile F4F Wildcats could successfully take the skies from A6M Zeroes when flown with mutual support. The agility of the Zero was largely nullified when you used more than 1 vs 1 scenarios. The four F-4s with 2 crewmen each could fight in the vertical, maintian better situational awareness and would probably win. Of course, if the F-8s truly have such awesome agility compared to the F-4, the battle might be a draw until someone runs out of gas and has to try to disengage... Like quite a few of the F-8 kills against MiG-17s (and surely a similar percentage of the F-4 kills). So which aircraft would have better endurance while using lots of afterburner for sustained hard turns and zoom climbs? In Top Gun, F-4 crews were taught to beat souped up A-4s and F-5Es in exactly the same sort of situations (as F-8 crews had already known how to do from the start).

 

As I have never flown either aircraft in reality and can clearly show that the flight modeling in sims like the SF2 series is no basis for comparison, I can only judge by the historical record. Given everything I know, if I had to pick one aircraft to fly in combat any time from 1958 to 1975, it would be whatever the best F-4 variant that was available to me. If my mission might range from ground attack to air superiority, I would lean toward USAF variants as they always had better avionics for bombing in a given time frame while retaining the air-to-air capability. But, if my primary mission was air superiority, clearly, the Navy's access to better AIM-9 variants make the F-4B and F-4J the best choices. The F-4E would be much easier to fly and had a gun, but the F-4J's AWG-10 radar was greatly superior to the F-4E's APQ-120. Unlike the APQ-120, the look down feature actually worked and could find F-8s down in the weeds. While the Navy ultimately admitted that the slats were needed for safety, they never added the internal gun. It wasn't worth the weight, space, vibration, or loss in radar reliability (APQ-120s didn't like being vibrated by 100 rounds per second). SF2 makes the F-4E look better since its radar works just as well as the F-4J in the game, and it has slats and a gun, but consider the fact that in reality, even after the F-4E was widely available in Vietnam, that the F-4D was the aircraft of choice for USAF sweeps and CAP because of its superior radar. The SF series has come a long way, but aside from the slats and gun on the F-4E, all the F-4s seem about the same as long as they have been upgraded with a RWR. But in reality the F-4D was almost as good at ground pounding and a better air superiority aircraft than the F-4E and much better than the F-4B or F-4C in either role... as long as it isn't stuck with AIM-4Ds!

 

 

The comparison is invalid. In the comparison you cited, the Wildcat did NOT "take the skies" from the Zero, it merely held the line until the Hellcat (aka, the Ace Maker) came online to break the back of the Japanese. Plus the Wildcat out gunned the Zero when looking at gun to enemy armor ratio (ie, a snap burst of 4 M2s would kill a Zero, a feat the Zero could not return in kind). And you are also talking about 2 totally different pilot cultures and training. The aerial Samurai duelling in the air using his weapons agility to defeat his opponent, vs team tactics, hit'n'run, and dive away when necessary. If you put USN pilots in the Zero to even things up, the Zero would mop the floor with the Wildcat - period. Likewise if you did the opposite (IJN pilots in both planes).

 

Which brings us back to F-4 vs F-8. Post WWII and Korea, we knew all about Energy Fighting and ACM, and trained (at least some) of our pilots accordingly. Those pilots being Crusader pilots. Put them in both, and what you'll end up with is the stale mate I previously mentioned - where the Phantoms can't get a kill, but can deny the Crusaders as well, and eventually they have to go home due to fuel issues.

 

The only way for your scenario to work is to use the F-4E and to swap aircrews, putting the non-ACM guys into the Crusader (ie, given knowledge of Energy fighting only to the Energy fighter in this scenario), which brings us back to Chuck Yeager and rather defeats the point.

 

 

 

Edit - regarding radar, if the E's gun was so bad, why was the E never dumped by the USAF (before the Phantom itself as a whole was)? Why was the E the only one to ever get exported? Why is the E the one modern day derivatives are still based on? (F-4F was a lighted E and now is the ICE standard, and the F-4E Terminator 2020 or whatever it's called, and the Kurnass was flying pretty recently, that was an E too) That's not smart-assery, that's just honest curiosity.

Edited April 27, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[macelena 1,070]

I miss something in the thread, i don´t know if you agree with me, but the fact is that i don´t think that the USN was thinking solely on the tactical engagements over SEA. There should be, of course, some adaptations to the environment.

 

However the role of fleet defender was still to be considered seriously by the US navy. I heard of several occasions in wich MiG-17 or An-2 flew into battle groups in the gulf of Tonkin, trying the trick of bedcheck charlie but by charlie itself, being intercepted and downed by Phantoms and their frikkin weapons system, quite superior IMHO to that of the Crusader. If a single rocket misfired could cause the devastation in the Forrestal, imagine what a rocket pod salvo could do on a deck filled with aircraft, or a kamikaze like attack (i think they got the guts to). A carrier wing taken out of action with the lives of hundreds of sailors and pilots, 70.000 ship wich with some luck will stay only months in shipyards. So i guess that the fleet defender role was to be considered seriously.

 

Coming back to the tactical scenario, fighting for air superiority, given that most fighters the Crusader met were Frescos, they found themselves, anyway, out-turned. Talking about the thirdwire sims, i fly almost the same way (energy, vertical, speed, attack on targets of opportunity instead of engaging in duels) against frescos in a Crusader as in a Phantom, but i have less missiles on the Crusader, and i´m too lazy for paying lots of gunkills if its not a Sabre.

 

 

Finally, about the difference about the F-4E and the F-4J, i didn´t see much difference in the ini numbers, it might be my mood, but on the same age (1972) the F-4J seems more accurate to hit their targets in BVR. I could try a research based on statistics, but i think it is rare for the Juliet to miss an Sparrow (E2 version) shot if properly took into parameters

[UnknownPilot 33]

Mac, absolutely the Phantom was more versitile and better at BVR which was vital for fleet defense. My only argument here is against the notion that the Phantom was as good at turning as the Crusader was.

 

Outside of that, there's no question that it was the better fleet defense interceptor and also had the capacity for fighter sweeps as well.

 

However regarding gun kills... they are almost too easy. Not sure where the idea of laziness comes in. That is the single greatest handicap for the Phantom. Again, if you mount AIM-9Ls or Ms or even IRIS-Ts to it, then you're ok. But with 9Ds..... you're just chucking lots of money over-board in the hopes of something hitting. Sparrows aren't much better. Regardless of type (E or E-2), firing parameters, or firing platform. Also, the J eliminated the outboard slats, didn't it? Something the E had, and which was preferred by the rest of the world. Gotta think that was a help too (for the E).

 

And for the record, I really DO like the Phantom.

[JediMaster 451]

A lot of this is based on theoretical "factory fresh" planes. What about "in the field"? We've talked about the missile reliability factor, but that's not in a vacuum. I don't know what the mission capable rates were for each bird, but I would think the F-4 had more downtime due to more complex avionics than the F-8. What were the MMH for each bird? I know the F-4 had to be higher, but was it just a bit or a lot more?

I mean, a fleet of planes that is grounded is no threat to any aggressor, so if you had a wing of each plane, how many of each would actually be available to fight at any given time? I've never heard of any maintenance nightmare stories for the F-8 yet plenty for the F-4. Of course, there were so many more F-4s that may not mean anything.

Take the rather common problem (as far as type rather than occurrence) of a radar failure. For a missile-armed F-4, would that mandate an immediate RTB? What about an F-8? Was its radar a bonus, and not "vital"?

 

You may or may not be able to show that an F-8 at 100% would fare one way or another vs an F-4 at 100%, but how often were each really at 100%?

 

Just like Oleg's penchant for using "captured test data" for non-Russian planes and then "let's impress Comrade Stalin" data for the Russian planes, you have to take a lot of numbers with a large dose of salt...

[column5 63]

Show me the data from the manufacturer or NASA that shows F-8 turn performance at specific heights, loadouts, and speed ranges before claiming how it was more maneuverable.

 

Soon as I find my flight manual DVDs, I will be happy to oblige you. Looking at a hard copy F-4J flight manual last night, it had very detailed information on turn rate and radius at various speeds. It will be an interesting comparison because the turn rate of the Phantom at various speeds is not outstanding, to say the least.

[column5 63]

The F-8 wasn't even close to being optimized for ACM. Was it as maneuverable as an F-86 or MiG-17? Did it have a bubble canopy? Like all post WW2 jet fighters until the F-16, it was designed for speed and climb first at the cost of maneuverability.

 

You need to go do some research on the US Navy's concept of a day fighter in the 1950s versus an all-weather or general purpose fighter. The F-8 was designed from the start to engage enemy fighters in close combat. That said, speed was king at the time the Crusader was being developed and it does sacrifice maneuverability when compared to aircraft like the F-86. However you keep veering from the original point which is simply that in a comparison between the F-4 and F-8, with all else being equal, the Crusader will have an advantage in terms of maneuverability. I know you love the Phantom but it is not, and never was, perfect. Many contemporary aircraft had advantages over it in certain regimes of flight, but none had the overall high degree of versatility that made it famous.

[ShrikeHawk 384]

Several times someone has commented about the Crusader pilot trying out the F-4 and eventually wondering why the F-4 EVER lost. But we still haven't heard specifically why he felt that way. So I will guess. I think the F-8 pilots were trained in energy fighting. They had to if they expected to win against a more nimble opponent in the Mig-17. It's certain death to fight the other guy's fight, so you have to force the fight into your best flight envelope. The F-8 was a better energy fighter so it's pilots learned to play to that advantage.

 

So, when the F-8 pilot is placed into the Phantom, he's given an even BETTER "energy fighter", which consequently means it's also an even poorer turner. This is true because the F-4's heavy twin engines make it a weighty monster, but at least fast in the straightaway. Add in BVR capability, and there's little doubt the Crusader pilot would say the F-4 should win. So I don't believe his statement is proof that the F-4 was an equivalent turner to the F-8. It just proves that the F-4 was a great overall combat aircraft.

 

In a fight between the two, I'd hate to be in the F-8 when "approaching" the engagement. But once the fight gets into knife-fighting range, gimme the F-8 every time.

[MigBuster 2,884]

The point of my thread is not to bash the F-8. Its combat record speaks for itself. I simply disagree with the assessment that it would have been a better choice for the fleet than the F-4, especially based on the idea that it was somehow magically more agile than it really was.

 

 

Yes I have that Osprey F-8 book - so probably no need to pull out all of those things really - sorry to have wasted your time.

 

Pretty sure no one has said it would be a better choice for the fleet so Im not sure where you got that from.

 

No one had tried to compare the F-8 to the MiG-17 in terms of turning ability - it was simply that everything you see suggests that the F-8 was more agile (in both horizontal and vertical turns) than the F-4 - so logically this makes it easier for the F-8 to get into a favourable position over any foe to launch AIM-9s or use its gun.

 

If C5 has the documentation then I'm sure he will prove that to you.

 

btw the period in question was the F-8s Rolling Thunder MiG killing period over SEA ( F-4B/C/D) - so forget BVR

Edited April 27, 2010 by MigBuster

[rotarycrazy 4]

I have a little question about the mig-17, did it sufer from deep stalls?

[column5 63]

If C5 has the documentation then I'm sure he will prove that to you.

 

Thing is, having known streakeagle on the forums for many years, I know perfectly well that he knows better than most other hobbyists what the strengths and weaknesses of the F-4 are. I can understand wanting to defend one's favorite aircraft (I do the same with the F-14) but I don't understand where he is coming from on this--next he will claim that the A-4 was no more nimble than the Phantom.

[Gr.Viper 131]

next he will claim that the A-4 was no more nimble than the Phantom.

"...if we inflate A-4 to the size of F-4..."

[+streakeagle 871]

The MiG-21 and MiG-17 were both more maneuverable than the F-4, yet the F-4 could and did beat both with whatever weapon the pilots could get to work. Agility makes it easier to convert angles, but does not win dogfights, otherwise, how would the much less maneuverable F-8 consistently beat the MiG-17 that could clearly out turn it and get out of AIM-9 parameters at will. My argument is that the F-8 was not a very agile fighter. It was probably marginally more agile than the F-4 in the same way that the F-4 was marginally more agile than the F-104. The key to the F-8's success was neither its guns nor its "agility". It was flown by pilots that utilized its strengths. Now, if the F-8 can beat the MiG-17 because it is a better enegry fighter, why wouldn't the F-4 beat the F-8 for the same reason? Is the F-4's energy margin large enough to overcome its turn rate disadvantage against the F-8. The answer lies with the MiG-21 and F-5E. The MiG-21 is smaller and faster than the F-8, but suffers sustained turn performance disadvantages due to its delta wing. The F-5E has about the same speed capability as the F-8, but is much lighter and far more agile. F-4 pilots were trained to smoke A-4s and F-5s as proxies for the MiG-17s and MiG-21s they would actually face. So how is the F-8 going to consistently beat the F-4 with agility if the pilots are equal and the F-4 has already proven that it will win most of the time against aircraft that are far smaller, lighter, and more agile than the F-8? The aircraft that the Israeli F-4 pilots feared was the MiG-21bis and any other derivatives using the same engine that beat the F-4 at its own game with superior power to weight AND was more agile. If the better MiG-21 pilots in the mid east had ever gotten a missile comparable to the AIM-9D/G/H to use against the F-4, the F-4's air-to-air record would have been much worse.

 

I have the pilot manuals for the entire F-8 series and quite a few other fighters. Like most other aircraft, there are no detailed performance tables that would permit me to create an accurate flight model, or I would gladly do so. I have great data for the F-4 and F-104, though. They can be modeled to the limits of TK's game engine. Most other aircraft prior to the F-15 have limited turn data. An overlay showing the relative turn and climb performance of the MiG-17, MiG-21, F-8, and F-105 would tell a great story. MiG-21 data is somewhat available, but the early variants I only have in Russian. The bis I have in English. I don't just know a lot about the F-4. I have studied all the aircraft. It's not like I am claiming that the F-4 should be able to clobber the F-16 in ACM. I will say that an experienced F-4 pilot could hold his ground against inexperienced pilots in the F-14 and F-15. The F-14's performance advantages over the F-4 were similar to the F-4's performance advantages over the F-104-better across the board, but not by a huge amount. The F-15 was crippled in agility by a lack of a leading edge high lift device. It turned little better than the F-4, but could match the F-4's best turn rate using only military power, which meant that with afterburner, the F-15 could climb while the F-4 struggled to maintain a level turn.

 

If you design an aircraft to have low transonic/supersonic drag in the quest for speed, you will not get an agile fighter. The F-16 uses modern technology to maximize the lift of a delta design in the form of LERX, body blending, high thrust-to-weight turbofan, and lightweight construction to make it agile despite the supersonic capability. It also omitted variable geometry intakes knowing that the engine was so strong that even at reduced efficiency the aircraft could push Mach 2. No matter what the Navy called the F-8, it was a Mach 1.5 limited equivalent to the MiG-21.

 

Lacking the tables I prefer, consider the following:

 

F-4B: 38,000 lbs combat weight, 530 ft^2 wing area, 34,000 lbs A/B -----> 71.7 lbs/ft^2 wing loading and 0.895 T/W

F-8E: 25,000 lbs combat weight, 385 ft^2 wing area, 18,000 lbs A/B -----> 64.9 lbs/ft^2 wing loading and 0.720 T/W

MiG-21PF: 15,000 lbs combat weight, 247 ft^2 wing area, 13,490 lbs A/B -> 60.7 lbs/ft^2 wing loading and 0.899 T/W

 

At a glance, the MiG-21 should be dusting both aircraft, but these numbers don't reflect the effects of drag, aspect ratio etc.

Suffice it to say that the F-4B took all the time-to-climb and speed records because its specific excess power outclassed anything flying at the time by a safe margin. the MiG-21's delta wing made for good supersonic drag and good climb. The induced drag was higher than a straight wing like the F-8, but even with that penalty, it still managed better sustained turns at altitude against the F-4. The MiG-21 could be out turned by the F-4. With the F-8 having a wing loading about midway between the F-4 and MiG-21 while at the same time having drastically less power available, I would question the F-8's ability to sustain much higher rates of turn than the F-4 over certain portions of the envelope, particularly at the higher subsonic speeds where I would expect the F-4 to have its most signficant power advantage. I am not arguing that an aircraft is better because I like it best, I am arguing that the F-8 has an overhyped reputation for agility that would be easily deflated to a large extent if the pertinent data was available.

 

Would it be fair to say that most WW2 fighters were built to be close combat day fighters? The US always chose speed and power over agility. The F-8 was built to win using speed and power, not turn fighting. Whether you are talking about WW2 or Vietnam, the US almost exclusively fielded larger/heavier, longer ranged, faster/more powerful fighters versus smaller, lighter, more agile opponents. We beat the A6M with boom-n-zooom, pilot quality, attrition, and tactics. The F-104 and F-8 were supersonic successors to the single seat boom-n-zoom air superiority fighters minus the bubble canopies because no one wanted to pay the drag for them. If the Navy were trying to make a turn fighter, shouldn't it be able to out turn at least one opponent it was expected to face? You will never sell me on the idea that the F-8 was built with the goal of agility being a priority. Speed, rate-of-climb, and range were the big three for most US designs until the F-16/F-17.

[+Dave 2,322]

Anyone else read SE's long post and has to take an aspirin afterwards? j/k

 

And death to F-4's.....

[serverandenforcer 33]

Can someone summarize that for me... I'm too drunk to read all of that right now.