The F4 vs Modern Fighters
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did The TESS Trials
The thing on the side of the Iranian F4 in TEEJ's 4th picture was just the rearview mirror. The Iranians mounted them 10 o clock and 2 o clock. We just had a single mirror at the 12 o clock.
TESS was different and was introduced by CTTO and I flew the evaluation sorties in RAFG in April 81 with a certain GC in the front. the Trial was called "Eagle Eye" - I wonder why!!!!
As you rightly say Beagle, the prototype was a chopped down tank sight and it was mounted on a metal panel which replaced the clear panel. The prototype was actually mounted on the right hand side of the aircraft. Can't recall why it was switched over to the other side. It may have been something to do with the fact the probe was on that side or it may have been my moaning about getting the nav hand controller up my nostril under G.
TESS was boresighted down the weapons line so when you put the sidewinder dot in the middle the target was in the scope. It had about 7 degrees field of view I seem to remember but memories are vague now! I recall that it was difficult ergonomically to lean over the navs hand controller with it on the right. I also remember that I spent a lot of time during those sorties in LFA3 in Germany peering down the shuftie scope. We were asked to determine detection ranges and positive ident ranges at low level overland. Closing from 20 miles into a standard hook attack, eye glued to the TESS with the world revolving in mono was an experience I didn't repeat. Somehow the F4 air conditioning couldn't quite offer enough cold air to compensate for the beads of sweat. The "bag" was close by just in case. Tactics evolved to a quick peek at the right moment.
All that said, the concept was a masterpiece of ingenuity.
TESS was different and was introduced by CTTO and I flew the evaluation sorties in RAFG in April 81 with a certain GC in the front. the Trial was called "Eagle Eye" - I wonder why!!!!
As you rightly say Beagle, the prototype was a chopped down tank sight and it was mounted on a metal panel which replaced the clear panel. The prototype was actually mounted on the right hand side of the aircraft. Can't recall why it was switched over to the other side. It may have been something to do with the fact the probe was on that side or it may have been my moaning about getting the nav hand controller up my nostril under G.
TESS was boresighted down the weapons line so when you put the sidewinder dot in the middle the target was in the scope. It had about 7 degrees field of view I seem to remember but memories are vague now! I recall that it was difficult ergonomically to lean over the navs hand controller with it on the right. I also remember that I spent a lot of time during those sorties in LFA3 in Germany peering down the shuftie scope. We were asked to determine detection ranges and positive ident ranges at low level overland. Closing from 20 miles into a standard hook attack, eye glued to the TESS with the world revolving in mono was an experience I didn't repeat. Somehow the F4 air conditioning couldn't quite offer enough cold air to compensate for the beads of sweat. The "bag" was close by just in case. Tactics evolved to a quick peek at the right moment.
All that said, the concept was a masterpiece of ingenuity.
Last edited by Geehovah; 4th Feb 2011 at 15:01.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having discussed the Mig 23 handling characteristics with a test pilot who flew many hours on the jet, I can safely say that no Flogger pilot would have risked anything remotely close to 900 kts at low level. His words were he spent most of his time on the aircraft trying to prevent it from killing him. The aircraft had some very nasty handling characteristics.
Ironic as we were all paranoid about its capabilities when it sat over the border from us during the Cold War. If only we'd known.
Ironic as we were all paranoid about its capabilities when it sat over the border from us during the Cold War. If only we'd known.
Apologies. I was wrong. From the horses mouth (one of the spooks who flew it):
If you planned to turn the plane at all, the wings were probably at 45. 72 degrees was the "go fast" position. It's top speed in knots was not all that high (730 in training, 780 in combat if needed -- again as I recall) but it could get from 500 kts to that 730 kts very quickly. (The mach limit at 72 degrees was 2.35.) With the wings at 72 degrees, the plane had very little drag. 16 degree was not very stable and we did not maneuver near the AOA limit at all. 45 degrees was better but it would depart controlled flight on you (and spin) if you exceeded the AOA limit (as I unfortunately apparently did twice on one mission). 72 degrees was pretty stable and it was almost impossible to depart in that configuration. You could bring the stick back to right around 32 units (or a little beyond) and it would just sit there and wing rock up to 20-30 degrees bank and slow down moderately quickly. I think we had about a 400 kts and 3 G limit at 16 degrees , and around 6.5 G (maybe 7 G if it was light) at 45 and 72.
Pertaining to a "what if":
It was obvious to us that the MiG-23BN was not designed with turning in mind. Most (but not all) of our OOC (Out of Control) events were in the "BN".
MiG-23 MS and Hard-wing versions of the AF F-4 (F-4C, F-4D, and F-4E) had about the same turn performance as I recall. The F-4E LES (Leading Edge Slats) had better turn performance but bled airspeed at a higher rate. All models of the F-4 gave more warning of impending loss of control (more buffet and wing rock) and the F-4 OOC usually did NOT result in spin whereas almost all MiG-23 OOC resulted in spin.
We knew that the MiG-23 MS and especially the BN were not great "dogfighters" but they were all we had. Our job was to expose the Tactical Air Forces of our Armed Services to the "then current" threat as best we could represent it in a worst case scenario. We did not try to emulate Soviet tactics but rather to show our pilots what the planes we had could do in the hands of a well trained, aggressive pilot who was very familiar with both their tactics and their planes capabilities. (We could sometimes hold our own against an F-4, but we routinely got out butts kicked by almost everything else.) We would have loved to have had the ML to fly but we didn't (we would have especially have liked to have had the High Lark radar). We would have loved to be able to fly only the MS in the air-to-air role but we didn't have enough of them to do that and generate the number of sorties we wanted to fly. So we flew both the MS and the BN air-to air
over from Steve Davies' site
If you planned to turn the plane at all, the wings were probably at 45. 72 degrees was the "go fast" position. It's top speed in knots was not all that high (730 in training, 780 in combat if needed -- again as I recall) but it could get from 500 kts to that 730 kts very quickly. (The mach limit at 72 degrees was 2.35.) With the wings at 72 degrees, the plane had very little drag. 16 degree was not very stable and we did not maneuver near the AOA limit at all. 45 degrees was better but it would depart controlled flight on you (and spin) if you exceeded the AOA limit (as I unfortunately apparently did twice on one mission). 72 degrees was pretty stable and it was almost impossible to depart in that configuration. You could bring the stick back to right around 32 units (or a little beyond) and it would just sit there and wing rock up to 20-30 degrees bank and slow down moderately quickly. I think we had about a 400 kts and 3 G limit at 16 degrees , and around 6.5 G (maybe 7 G if it was light) at 45 and 72.
Pertaining to a "what if":
It was obvious to us that the MiG-23BN was not designed with turning in mind. Most (but not all) of our OOC (Out of Control) events were in the "BN".
MiG-23 MS and Hard-wing versions of the AF F-4 (F-4C, F-4D, and F-4E) had about the same turn performance as I recall. The F-4E LES (Leading Edge Slats) had better turn performance but bled airspeed at a higher rate. All models of the F-4 gave more warning of impending loss of control (more buffet and wing rock) and the F-4 OOC usually did NOT result in spin whereas almost all MiG-23 OOC resulted in spin.
We knew that the MiG-23 MS and especially the BN were not great "dogfighters" but they were all we had. Our job was to expose the Tactical Air Forces of our Armed Services to the "then current" threat as best we could represent it in a worst case scenario. We did not try to emulate Soviet tactics but rather to show our pilots what the planes we had could do in the hands of a well trained, aggressive pilot who was very familiar with both their tactics and their planes capabilities. (We could sometimes hold our own against an F-4, but we routinely got out butts kicked by almost everything else.) We would have loved to have had the ML to fly but we didn't (we would have especially have liked to have had the High Lark radar). We would have loved to be able to fly only the MS in the air-to-air role but we didn't have enough of them to do that and generate the number of sorties we wanted to fly. So we flew both the MS and the BN air-to air
over from Steve Davies' site
hold on. It seems I don't ever forget a lil' detail. Top Anorak or what! Again from the Horse's mouth:
You'll have to forgive me for not having read Steve's other books but whenever I hear about a MiG-23 being "run down", I always have to ask myself "Did he know he was being chased, or was he just crusing along at 500-600 KCAS or so with his wings swept at 45 degrees when his airplane blew up?". I know for a fact that a MiG-23MS will do in excess of 900 KCAS. That is above the published airspeed limit but that is a difference between their planes and ours. Their's will usually exceed their published airspeed limits where ours usually will not. I know of no US fighter that can run down a plane going 900 KCAS (or even 800).
You'll have to forgive me for not having read Steve's other books but whenever I hear about a MiG-23 being "run down", I always have to ask myself "Did he know he was being chased, or was he just crusing along at 500-600 KCAS or so with his wings swept at 45 degrees when his airplane blew up?". I know for a fact that a MiG-23MS will do in excess of 900 KCAS. That is above the published airspeed limit but that is a difference between their planes and ours. Their's will usually exceed their published airspeed limits where ours usually will not. I know of no US fighter that can run down a plane going 900 KCAS (or even 800).
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know for a fact that a MiG-23MS will do in excess of 900 KCAS.
I'm not giving anything away when I say I can confirm that statement
(we would have especially have liked to have had the High Lark radar)
If you had, plus the IRST fit, your overall opinion of the '23 may have been of a different hue...
The '23 was a capable aircraft with robust and well-integrated systems. However, it was no '21 in a turning fight.
Anyone claiming to have flown both the '21 and the F4 and claiming they'd prefer to fight even in a late model F4 is either a liar or a fool. Or an overly-optimistic American.
I'm not giving anything away when I say I can confirm that statement
(we would have especially have liked to have had the High Lark radar)
If you had, plus the IRST fit, your overall opinion of the '23 may have been of a different hue...
The '23 was a capable aircraft with robust and well-integrated systems. However, it was no '21 in a turning fight.
Anyone claiming to have flown both the '21 and the F4 and claiming they'd prefer to fight even in a late model F4 is either a liar or a fool. Or an overly-optimistic American.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone claiming to have flown both the '21 and the F4 and claiming they'd prefer to fight even in a late model F4 is either a liar or a fool. Or an overly-optimistic American.
Never flew in the Mig 21 but I guess the Hawk/F5 are quite similar. I'm afraid I must be in one of those categories. I would never have wanted to go to war without a head on shot available. Not wanting to get into a tadger tamping contest but we all know that what a jet is capable of doing is not necessarily what you would want to do for real. Equally, some limits are overly restrictive. The 750 kt service limit for the F3 vs the 850 kt AWFL limit is a good example.
Never flew in the Mig 21 but I guess the Hawk/F5 are quite similar. I'm afraid I must be in one of those categories. I would never have wanted to go to war without a head on shot available. Not wanting to get into a tadger tamping contest but we all know that what a jet is capable of doing is not necessarily what you would want to do for real. Equally, some limits are overly restrictive. The 750 kt service limit for the F3 vs the 850 kt AWFL limit is a good example.
Last edited by Geehovah; 5th Feb 2011 at 07:42.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't remember the Israelis having much of a problem with F4 v Mig 21.
In my experience the avionics in the F4 gave it such a technology edge that it more than made up for size and turning deficiencies. Add the capability of a face shot that the Mig did not have and the advantages were overwhelming. Nevertheless, any crew stupid enough to turn and burn deserved to lose - unless they knew their adversary pilot was equally inept.
In my experience the avionics in the F4 gave it such a technology edge that it more than made up for size and turning deficiencies. Add the capability of a face shot that the Mig did not have and the advantages were overwhelming. Nevertheless, any crew stupid enough to turn and burn deserved to lose - unless they knew their adversary pilot was equally inept.
Anyone claiming to have flown both the '21 and the F4 and claiming they'd prefer to fight even in a late model F4 is either a liar or a fool. Or an overly-optimistic American.
a Red Eagle (few years after Smash Nash) , Paco Geisler, with 500 Mig-21 sorties (almost wall-to-wall ACM) loved the plane, defeated all teen jets with it and went out stating: "I wouldn't want myself anywhere near that thing in combat!"
You draw you own conclusion.*
The Phantom was vastly superior. OK not vastly but decisively. The Israelis in fact took the F-4 1v1 in a low speed rolling scissors, more than once against the Mig-21 defeated it...in fact they killed the Mig-21 by just flying it into the ground in an environment where the latter was supposed to be significantly superior...or not quite? Anyway, you get the point....
To go 1v1 slow against the 21, well I'd say they were either inept or supremely confident in both their abilities and in knowing/quickly assessing their enemy...
*The Lightning was in many respects a great MiG-21, but still a MiG-21. You'd rather go to war in the F-4. As much as I love the Lightning over and above the other 2 a/c...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the Israeli experience was that they could beat the Mig 21 in a low speed fight. But, when I talked to them they agreed that the Mig 21 should have fared better but was flown by inferior pilots.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having logged 1850 hrs. in the Phantom (178 combat missions in SEA from Korat Thailand and a tour at RAF Lakenheath) as well as having been operational in the F-14, F-15, and F/A-18 (Navy exchange tour with VX-4) and flight time in “other” aircraft I would like to add my bit to this discussion.
First as has been pointed out the F-4 was not designed as a fighter but rather a fleet air defense aircraft. As such its primary mission was intercepting in-bound bombers. Having said that, it did a remarkable job in the fighter role given its original design requirements. Two things relative to its performance against the Mig-21: it could indeed turn with a Mig-21 at low speeds if approach flaps deployed (a trick not normally taught or condoned at the time). The Mig-21 could not accelerate out of the slow speed situation and it was possible to actually turn in front but above the Mig-21 in a turning fight with ½ flaps as he could not get the nose up to get a shot. Secondly if you could kept the Mig-21 a bay for any length of time you would run it out of gas. There were many times when we would log only 20 minute flights if afterburner was used extensively. The other issue is the pilots that were flying the F-4 over the course of the war. With one tour of duty being the norm, some of my squadron mates in SEA were newly minted F-4 drivers coming from bombers or transports. I takes more than a 3 month course to become truly proficient as a fighter pilot. In addition, as has been mentioned also, we were unable to use the one advantage we had which was better avionics and missiles (from the fleet defense mission) because of the requirement to visually identify the target. This generally put us into a dog fight position at the start. And yes IMHO the Mig-23 was not as much of a threat as the Mig-21. Interestingly you could not move the Mig-23 wings when maneuvering above 3 g, unlike the F-14 which automatically scheduled the movement based on air data inputs and at any loading. It was fast however and could run down a B-1 doing low level ingress at 550 kts. thinking they were untouchable.
As technology progressed the F-15 enjoyed both an aerodynamic and avionics advantage. The F-4 is close to neutrally stable at 400-500 kts. (a real credit to the demonstration teams who flew the F-4) and had a tendency to depart at high angles of attack if not handled with care. It was very interesting to see the members of USAF test pilot school classes after mine enter the school with only time in the F-15 or F-16 get into the F-4 and attempt to fly it with precision. I vividly remember my first flight in the F-15 when I was demonstrated a tail slide in the aircraft. The ease of flying the F-15 was one of the keys to allowing single pilot operation as you could concentrate on running the avionics since the aircraft was so easy to fly. In addition regardless of what some folks have said being in a Mig-21 (or F-4 for that matter) “snug in the metal cockpit with mirrors to cover six” is not preferable to the visibility and panoramic view from the F-15 or F/A-18 when the enemy is within visual range. And the 1/8 inch metal isn’t going to stop any projectile.
Combat tactics moved on as the F-15 entered service. Although we still enjoyed doing one-v-one dog fighting it became obvious, as Red Flag pointed out, that “shooting the boggy in the face” was the best approach to arriving home alive. The focus became using the avionics (and other systems) to obtain an ID on the boggy. The whole idea was not to get into a turning engagement as this tended to attract unwanted attention like flies to s__t.
Now on to the F-22 and the next technology, stealth. Without getting into this area too deeply it is the next evolution in shooting the boggy in the face. It becomes dueling radars and dueling missiles - who can get situational awareness first and who can get off the first effective shot at the longest range. Sensor integration is the name of the game. The number of missiles matters as quantity has a quality of its own. And an IRST is of great value for that additional passive information it provides. It is still tremendously maneuverable if it has to but that is not the preferred method of employment.
Next up - high power lasers and unmanned fighters but that’s for another thread.
So even if you could afford to upgrade an F-4 with modern avionics you still would have the aerodynamics of the basic platform and the visibility of the basic platform. In addition, you would have to up-grade the ECS and other system to provide the liquid cooling and electrical power required for the avionics and you would still have the maintenance issues (believe me the F-4 was not designed to be nearly as supportable as current fighters). I enjoyed flying the Phantom but if I had to go to war today please put me in an F-15 or F-22 regardless of what avionics you put in the F-4
First as has been pointed out the F-4 was not designed as a fighter but rather a fleet air defense aircraft. As such its primary mission was intercepting in-bound bombers. Having said that, it did a remarkable job in the fighter role given its original design requirements. Two things relative to its performance against the Mig-21: it could indeed turn with a Mig-21 at low speeds if approach flaps deployed (a trick not normally taught or condoned at the time). The Mig-21 could not accelerate out of the slow speed situation and it was possible to actually turn in front but above the Mig-21 in a turning fight with ½ flaps as he could not get the nose up to get a shot. Secondly if you could kept the Mig-21 a bay for any length of time you would run it out of gas. There were many times when we would log only 20 minute flights if afterburner was used extensively. The other issue is the pilots that were flying the F-4 over the course of the war. With one tour of duty being the norm, some of my squadron mates in SEA were newly minted F-4 drivers coming from bombers or transports. I takes more than a 3 month course to become truly proficient as a fighter pilot. In addition, as has been mentioned also, we were unable to use the one advantage we had which was better avionics and missiles (from the fleet defense mission) because of the requirement to visually identify the target. This generally put us into a dog fight position at the start. And yes IMHO the Mig-23 was not as much of a threat as the Mig-21. Interestingly you could not move the Mig-23 wings when maneuvering above 3 g, unlike the F-14 which automatically scheduled the movement based on air data inputs and at any loading. It was fast however and could run down a B-1 doing low level ingress at 550 kts. thinking they were untouchable.
As technology progressed the F-15 enjoyed both an aerodynamic and avionics advantage. The F-4 is close to neutrally stable at 400-500 kts. (a real credit to the demonstration teams who flew the F-4) and had a tendency to depart at high angles of attack if not handled with care. It was very interesting to see the members of USAF test pilot school classes after mine enter the school with only time in the F-15 or F-16 get into the F-4 and attempt to fly it with precision. I vividly remember my first flight in the F-15 when I was demonstrated a tail slide in the aircraft. The ease of flying the F-15 was one of the keys to allowing single pilot operation as you could concentrate on running the avionics since the aircraft was so easy to fly. In addition regardless of what some folks have said being in a Mig-21 (or F-4 for that matter) “snug in the metal cockpit with mirrors to cover six” is not preferable to the visibility and panoramic view from the F-15 or F/A-18 when the enemy is within visual range. And the 1/8 inch metal isn’t going to stop any projectile.
Combat tactics moved on as the F-15 entered service. Although we still enjoyed doing one-v-one dog fighting it became obvious, as Red Flag pointed out, that “shooting the boggy in the face” was the best approach to arriving home alive. The focus became using the avionics (and other systems) to obtain an ID on the boggy. The whole idea was not to get into a turning engagement as this tended to attract unwanted attention like flies to s__t.
Now on to the F-22 and the next technology, stealth. Without getting into this area too deeply it is the next evolution in shooting the boggy in the face. It becomes dueling radars and dueling missiles - who can get situational awareness first and who can get off the first effective shot at the longest range. Sensor integration is the name of the game. The number of missiles matters as quantity has a quality of its own. And an IRST is of great value for that additional passive information it provides. It is still tremendously maneuverable if it has to but that is not the preferred method of employment.
Next up - high power lasers and unmanned fighters but that’s for another thread.
So even if you could afford to upgrade an F-4 with modern avionics you still would have the aerodynamics of the basic platform and the visibility of the basic platform. In addition, you would have to up-grade the ECS and other system to provide the liquid cooling and electrical power required for the avionics and you would still have the maintenance issues (believe me the F-4 was not designed to be nearly as supportable as current fighters). I enjoyed flying the Phantom but if I had to go to war today please put me in an F-15 or F-22 regardless of what avionics you put in the F-4
Bevo
i logged over 3.000 hours in the Phantom, 1.100 in the F4F and the rest in the RF-4E. I enjoyed every second of them.
Until 1983 flown by a well trained crew and using fluid two tactics we could score against far better single piloted fighters also in a dog fight. The internal M-61 cannon was very helpful. If a tracking solution could not be acchieved, a high deflection gunshot had to do. If we knew the capabilities of our potential adversaries, we used applicable tactics against them.
During NATO Tac-Eval in 1981 we got 3 kills out of a fourship F15, who had been waiting on us in the target area, without taking one single shot on my fourship. During debrief a frustrated LtCol told the audience, that he couldn´t understand, how it happened.
franzl
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good summaries but it might be timely to remind everyone that not all F4s were equal in the air to air arena.
In the 70s, the F4Es (USAF main fighter at the time) had pulse radars. Only the USN F4J had the pulse doppler radar (PD) and most guys who flew it admitted that it was U/S more than it was S. Only the UK versions had genuine working PD AWG 10/12s at the time which gave a viable look down shoot down, particularly below 5000 ft. Even then the serviceability was dreadful until the transmitter mods.
Only later when the F4F received the APG 65 and AMRAAM was the jet able to match the 3rd gen fighters but by then the UK jets had all but retired.
In the 70s, the F4Es (USAF main fighter at the time) had pulse radars. Only the USN F4J had the pulse doppler radar (PD) and most guys who flew it admitted that it was U/S more than it was S. Only the UK versions had genuine working PD AWG 10/12s at the time which gave a viable look down shoot down, particularly below 5000 ft. Even then the serviceability was dreadful until the transmitter mods.
Only later when the F4F received the APG 65 and AMRAAM was the jet able to match the 3rd gen fighters but by then the UK jets had all but retired.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To use non-technical expressions for all the aeromodelers on here claiming to be pilots, the Hawk is smooth, lovely and swoopy. The '21 is rough, pointy and bumpy. As for the F5, it's an interesting design, beautifully finished and very neat internally. But in the air it lacks something. I think it's called 'balls'.
Like all highly capable aeroplanes, the '21 is very difficult to fly excellently, hence its shocking record in the hands of our cousins in the Middle East. Sadly, they couldn't even use the systems properly, far less fly the thing. The places where a '21 really excels are on the outer edges of its flight envelope and that's where it will live in the hands of a half decent pilot.
No-one thinks a thin aluminium skin going to protect them from nasty flying objects. It's a psychological issue; about where you feel you belong; about having the aeroplane wrapped around you While I think (though can't confirm) that the view from the cockpit of an F15, 16, et al., must be just glorious as you swan around the sunny skies of Nevada, it's not where I'd want to put myself when things get iffy.
Having enjoyed a ride in an F4 I can honestly say I like the giant lump. It seems like a honest machine. I'm certainly not qualified to offer an opinion on its systems, but they too appeared 'competent'. However, as so many others have pointed out, it's not a fighter in the strictest sense of the word and it never was a true competitor for the Mig 21. But an early '80's '21 vs an early '80's Lightning? Golly, that would have been a giggle....
Anyway, we're all old now and arguing pointlessly over things past. As we're a few days into - for us - the Year of the Cat, I'd like to wish you all 'Chuc mung nam moi!' Happy New Year!
Like all highly capable aeroplanes, the '21 is very difficult to fly excellently, hence its shocking record in the hands of our cousins in the Middle East. Sadly, they couldn't even use the systems properly, far less fly the thing. The places where a '21 really excels are on the outer edges of its flight envelope and that's where it will live in the hands of a half decent pilot.
No-one thinks a thin aluminium skin going to protect them from nasty flying objects. It's a psychological issue; about where you feel you belong; about having the aeroplane wrapped around you While I think (though can't confirm) that the view from the cockpit of an F15, 16, et al., must be just glorious as you swan around the sunny skies of Nevada, it's not where I'd want to put myself when things get iffy.
Having enjoyed a ride in an F4 I can honestly say I like the giant lump. It seems like a honest machine. I'm certainly not qualified to offer an opinion on its systems, but they too appeared 'competent'. However, as so many others have pointed out, it's not a fighter in the strictest sense of the word and it never was a true competitor for the Mig 21. But an early '80's '21 vs an early '80's Lightning? Golly, that would have been a giggle....
Anyway, we're all old now and arguing pointlessly over things past. As we're a few days into - for us - the Year of the Cat, I'd like to wish you all 'Chuc mung nam moi!' Happy New Year!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the early1970s I, while stationed at RAF Lakenheath flying Phantoms, I got the opportunity for one flight in the Lightning at RAF Coltishall. This was of course a two seat version and unfortunately I don’t remember the assigned squadron. The thing I remember most was the excellent handling qualities of the aircraft compared to the Phantom especially in pitch. A very shot legged aircraft, however, and it seemed like we were out of gas just after we got airborne. This led to the reputation that Coltishall had among our pilots as a great place to divert to when the weather was really nasty as the GCA lads there were outstanding in their craft. We assumed that was because the Lightings were always short on fuel and couldn’t make very many missed approaches.
