See? Change a letter, add a word and the whole thing makes sense.
But we're talking about F4C's and Mig 21's here. Do you have a point to make in this discussion?
And while we're on the subject (or, rather, while I am...) why do many here have an irrational belief that if it begins with 'Mig' it's naturally inferior to whatever model of American/Brit/Euro air-machine were its contemporaries?
I know I come from 'the other side of the fence' on this one, but we were never blessed with a intelligence services which under-rated those types we might come up against. If anything, we tended to believe your hype, only to discover later that the reality of your equipment was far less than your brochures promised.
Client state pilots rarely achieved the training levels of their Soviet counterparts yet, in Viet Nam and on occasions in the various Arab - Israeli conflicts, Mig pilots in various versions acquitted themselves admirably against a far better trained adversary equipped with (allegedly) more advanced aircraft.
If you want it in a nutshell, Migs have always had the edge - both in terms of maneuverability and serviceability* - against Western fighters of a similar era.
There. End of discussion. Merry Christmas everyone!
* I would exclude the products of SAAB from this assessment. They design like Russians.