A fighter, or not?

The Phantom. The F-4 was designed as an interceptor and just about anyone who has talked about how it flies says as much. It is not particularly maneuverable. The F-86 on the other hand as I recall, was designed to almost be a jet powered P-51.
 
Yep, the F-4 Phantom II was designed to be an interceptor and armed only with missiles. The thought was that the era of dog fighting was over, but experience in the skies over North Vietnam proved that the F-4 needed guns too. First, a pod equipped with a 20mm Vulcan cannon and ammo was fitted to the center line, but this tended to yaw when fired which made this arrangement a bit inaccurate. The F-4E was the first Phantom II to be equipped with a 20mm Vulcan cannon mounted at the bottom of the nose section.

The F-86 Saber was created to be an air superiority fighter and it proved to be quite capable as such.
 
stansdds said:
Yep, the F-4 Phantom II was designed to be an interceptor and armed only with missiles. The thought was that the era of dog fighting was over, but experience in the skies over North Vietnam proved that the F-4 needed guns too. First, a pod equipped with a 20mm Vulcan cannon and ammo was fitted to the center line, but this tended to yaw when fired which made this arrangement a bit inaccurate. The F-4E was the first Phantom II to be equipped with a 20mm Vulcan cannon mounted at the bottom of the nose section.

The F-86 Saber was created to be an air superiority fighter and it proved to be quite capable as such.
Click to expand...

Those early Phantom gun pods weren't connected to a lead computing gunsight, so it was all Kentucky windage. Also, since the gun pod could only be mounted on centerline, Phantoms with gun pods lost their 600 gallon centerline fuel tank as a result.

View attachment 92820
 
Every definition I've seen says that a fighter aircraft is one designed primarily for air-to-air combat against other aircraft; the Phantom's primary role initially was fleet defence (sorry, fleet defense) so surely that makes it a fighter every bit as much as the Sabre? Oh sure, it was no dog fighter and about as manoeuvrable as a house brick; but the same could be said of the Starfighter or the Mirage, and nobody would say they weren't fighters surely.
 
ViperPilot2 said:
Those early Phantom gun pods weren't connected to a lead computing gunsight, so it was all Kentucky windage. Also, since the gun pod could only be mounted on centerline, Phantoms with gun pods lost their 600 gallon centerline fuel tank as a result.

View attachment 92820
Click to expand...

Our UK ones had an lcoss sight, loss of the big centreline tank wasn't much of an issue, it had g and bank angle
limits when fitted, to avoid getting into flat spin. Twin fletchers was usual fit.

Ttfn

Pete

Phormer Phantom Phixer

Ps where did XV424 paint job come from?
 
I believe the F4 was a "proof of theory" exercise describing the ideal that,"given enough power, even a brick could fly."

So, yes. One's a fighter, the other's a flying brick.
 
In fairness to the Phantom, one of it's biggest handicaps in the early days of Vietnam was the guy behind the stick. Prior to the air combat in SEA both the AF and Navy had de-emphasized dogfight training for new F-4 pilots. In Vietnam unreliable missiles and restrictive ROE forced pilots into situations they were unprepared for. When the AF and Navy restarted dogfight training they were able to drastically improve the the Phantom's kill ratio. Anyone ever heard of Duke Cunningham or Steve Ritchie? Don't try to tell them the Phantom's not a fighter.
 
Motormouse said:
where did XV424 paint job come from?
Click to expand...

From the paint centre at St. Athan.

Sorry, that skin for the Virtavia Pack 3 extra model (available in the paint kit) is, or was, widely available.
You're not supposed to notice that the TACAN aerials are visible on either side of the tail, although they weren't fitted until after the RWR pod was fitted.

Back to the main point: I had always believed that a Fighter could only be called such if there was only one brain aboard. Pause for the jokes.....
Sure, some aircraft were/are not exactly what might be called 'manoeuvrable', but they did their best.
"Looks like a fish. Moves like a fish. Steers like a cow." ringing any bells?

Dave
 
Kinda figured that is where you were going Dave but, as ever, it's not that straightforward. I can think of plenty of example of twin seat fighters, from the Bristol Fighter onwards; the Royal Navy, for example, preferred 2 seats as they thought the workload was too much for one man, which gave us aircraft like the Fairey Firefly which was undeniably a fighter (if somewhat compromised).

Let us just compromise and say that the Sabre and the Phantom are just drop dead gorgeous in their own way. :)
 
awj112 said:
... The F-4 was designed as an interceptor ...
Click to expand...

Actually, it was designed as an attack bomber, then reworked as a fleet defense interceptor because that's what the Navy was shopping for at the time. Are interceptors fighters or a separate category of aircraft? The answer to that is a matter of opinion and definitions. Was the Phantom a fighter? It may not have been originally designed as one, but it certainly functioned as one; it had considerable success in the air-to-air mission, and the guys who flew it considered themselves to be fighter pilots. That may or may not make it a fighter, depending on what definitions you prefer. This is an academic inquiry of the "ivory tower" variety and has more to do with semantics and categorizations than with the actual operation of airplanes.
 
magoo said:
I believe the F4 was a "proof of theory" exercise describing the ideal that,"given enough power, even a brick could fly."

So, yes. One's a fighter, the other's a flying brick.
Click to expand...

as Greek Rhino drivers tell me; in addition to that "And it takes 2 very powerful engines to move the Phantom" :icon_lol:

i guess nowadays you could call the Phantom 'Multirole', and many do call it just that... i'd have to agree, especially on the E and F series....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top