Ta152-H1 uber-fighter?

[evangilder]

F4As were test aircraft only. There were only 45 built. The F4E was the most common phantom built with 1405 made.

[plan_D]

Obviously, RG, you have NO idea how much fuel can weigh. The Phantom cannot take-off with a 1:1 thrust:weight ratio because it'd have no fuel.
The empty [equipped] weight is 31,853 lbs, the normal take-off weight (internal fuel and 4 AIM-7E) was 53, 814 lbs. The MAXIMUM take-off weight was 61, 795 lbs. The majority of that weight is fuel. You want to get the aircraft moving you have to have fuel... 35, 800 lbs does not provide enough for 1:1 thrust to weight.

250 miles isn't enough to intercept, the Lightning had 450 miles radius and that is considered poor. Even for an interceptor. That site is talking bollocks. Oh, on top of that use a little math a J79-GE-17 provided 17,900 lbs combined both engines provided 35,800 lbs.

And the MAXIMUM rate of climb for the F-4E (clean) was 49, 800 feet. Clean wing means no armament.

Again, the first aircraft to achieve 1:1 thrust:weight was the F-15. With combined thrust reaching 47,600 lbs from both F100-PW-100 each (re-heat) with clean take-off weight being 40,000 lbs.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i still considder the lightnig the better interceptor.............

[plan_D]

He can certainly get off the ground quicker. However, the F-4 Phantom had 4 AIM-7s for intercept where as the Lightning had two Firestreaks which were very good short range missiles but there's two, not four. The F-15 could also go intercept with radio silence as it was one of the first aircraft that could track it's target without ground controls help, plus the F-15 was a superior interceptor to the F-4 due to its quicker climb and quicker speed.
The Lightning was a 1947 design and was the only Western aircraft to reach 60,000 feet and intercept a Tu-95 until the Phantom came about during the 60s (Flying in the 50s though). Even then it can be considered a superior interceptor to the Phantom because it COULD get there quicker.

Oh and in the RAF all interceptors, including Phantoms, were full to the brim on fuel even when intercepting. It's much safer, and they can escort the Soviet bombers away further.

[evangilder]

Good point, plan_d. It's one thing to intercept and destroy. But that would have ruffled some feathers during the cold war, not to mention cause a potentially devastating escalation! You need the fuel to keep pestering them to go away.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Obviously, RG, you have NO idea how much fuel can weigh. The Phantom cannot take-off with a 1:1 thrust:weight ratio because it'd have no fuel.
The empty [equipped] weight is 31,853 lbs, the normal take-off weight (internal fuel and 4 AIM-7E) was 53, 814 lbs. The MAXIMUM take-off weight was 61, 795 lbs. The majority of that weight is fuel. You want to get the aircraft moving you have to have fuel... 35, 800 lbs does not provide enough for 1:1 thrust to weight.

250 miles isn't enough to intercept, the Lightning had 450 miles radius and that is considered poor. Even for an interceptor. That site is talking bollocks. Oh, on top of that use a little math a J79-GE-17 provided 17,900 lbs combined both engines provided 35,800 lbs.

And the MAXIMUM rate of climb for the F-4E (clean) was 49, 800 feet. Clean wing means no armament.

Jet fuel weighs about 6 lbs per gallon (US).

The F.6 Lightning had a combat radius of 400 miles. Earlier versions, which are what we are discussing, had a shorter range. I chose 250 miles because this was about equal to that of the contemporary Lightnings of ~1965.

I suggest you look at the whole J. Baugher site, one of the most respected aircraft sites on the web:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4.html

Specification of the F-4E Phantom:
Engines: Two General Electric J79-GE-17 turbojets, 11,870 lb.s.t dry, 17,900 lb.s.t. with afterburner. Performance: Maximum speed 1430 mph at 36,000 feet (Mach 2.21), 914 mph at sea level (Mach 1.19). Cruising speed 585 mph. Landing speed 158 mph. Initial climb rate 61,400 feet per minute. Service ceiling 62,250 feet. Combat ceiling 59,600 feet. Combat range 595 miles, maximum range 1885 miles with maximum external fuel. Weights: 29,535 pounds empty, 40,562 pounds gross, 38,019 pounds combat weight, 61,651 pounds maximum takeoff weight. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 5 inches, wing area 530 square feet, length 63 feet 0 inches, height 16 feet 6 inches. Fuel: Maximum internal fuel in the fuselage tanks was 1364 US gallons (up to block 40) or 1225 US gallons (block 41 and beyond). An additional 630 gallons of fuel could be carried in internal tanks inside the wings. Maximum external fuel load was 600 US gallons in a centerline tank that could be carried underneath the fuselage plus 370 US gallons in each of two tanks that could be carried underneath the outer underwing pylons, bringing total fuel load to 3334 US gallons (up to block 40) or 3195 US gallons (block 41 and beyond). Armament: Armament consisted of a single 20-mm M61A1 cannon with 639 rounds in an undernose gondola, plus four AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles in semi-recessed slots in the fuselage belly and two to four AIM-9 Sidewinder infra-red homing air-to-air missiles carried under the wings on the inboard pylons. A total offensive load of up to 16,000 pounds could be carried on the centerline and four underwing hardpoints.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_11.html

If your figures were right, there would be no way the plane could carry 16000 lbs of offensive weapon.

I figure the interceptor configuration weight as:

empty weight + full fuselage fuel + 4 x AIM-7 Sparrow a2a missiles + 2 AIM-9 Sidewinder A2A missiles

or

29535 + (1225 x 6) + 2000 + 380 = 39265

Which put's its power-weight ratio about equal to the Lightning.

Interestingly,

* By the late 1970s, the Lightning was beginning to be replaced by the McDonnell Douglas Phantom in RAF service, with a number of Lightnings relegated to such roles as ground decoys. Overall performance of the Phantom was comparable to that of the Lightning, with pluses and minuses, but the Phantom provided better endurance; more sophisticated and capable avionics; and much more substantial missile armament: a Phantom could carry four Sidewinder short-range AAMs and four Sparrow medium-range AAMs, in contrast to the two Firestreak or Red Top short-range AAMs carried by the Lightning. Later model Sidewinders and Sparrows were also far superior technically to the older Firestreak and Red Top. The Lightning was superior in terms of gun armament, however, since RAF Phantoms were limited to carriage of a centerline 20 millimeter Vulcan cannon pod, which lacked both the accuracy and the hitting power of the Lightning's twin Aden cannon.
http://www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html#m4

It seems in the end even the RAF prefered the Phantom.

=S=

Lunatic

[evangilder]

Your interceptor configuration is not correct. Standard air to air interception with the phantom consisted of the following on the hardpoints:
4 x AIM-9L Sidewinders
4 x AIM-7 Sparrows
2 x 370 US gallon drop tanks, one on each outer underwing station.

This was [bold]standard[/bold] configuration for the US Navy as well as AF Guard and Reserve Units.

Enhanced air to air interception war loads
1 x SUU-23/A Vulcan six-barrel 20mm machine gun pod with 1,200 rounds mounted on the Centerline
4 x AIM-9L Sidewinders
4 x AIM-7 Sparrow
2 x 370 US gallon drop tanks, one on each outer underwing station.

These are right out of the AF and Navy manuals and are published in the Book "The World's Greatest Attack Aircraft"

A few other numbers that need correcting here, the internal fuel load on the F-4E Phantom II weighed 12,290 lbs. couting wing and fuselage tanks (1,855 gallons).

You need to be careful making assumptions based solely on numbers and on one website. While the performance of the lightning and the phantom may have been comparable, they were a generation apart.

Originally Posted by evangilder

Your interceptor configuration is not correct. Standard air to air interception with the phantom consisted of the following on the hardpoints:
4 x AIM-9L Sidewinders
4 x AIM-7 Sparrows
2 x 370 US gallon drop tanks, one on each outer underwing station.

This was [bold]standard[/bold] configuration for the US Navy as well as AF Guard and Reserve Units.

Enhanced air to air interception war loads
1 x SUU-23/A Vulcan six-barrel 20mm machine gun pod with 1,200 rounds mounted on the Centerline
4 x AIM-9L Sidewinders
4 x AIM-7 Sparrow
2 x 370 US gallon drop tanks, one on each outer underwing station.

These are right out of the AF and Navy manuals and are published in the Book "The World's Greatest Attack Aircraft"

A few other numbers that need correcting here, the internal fuel load on the F-4E Phantom II weighed 12,290 lbs. couting wing and fuselage tanks (1,855 gallons).

You need to be careful making assumptions based solely on numbers and on one website. While the performance of the lightning and the phantom may have been comparable, they were a generation apart.

The F-4E could carry 2 or 4 AIM-9's as part of a "standard" configuration. But it hardly matters, two more weigh a wopping 380 lbs. I figured internal fuselage fuel only (1225 gallons) because this yeilds a range approximately equiv. to the 1965 era Lightning.

It is kind of muddy because most performance figures are comming from the F.6 Lightning and the F4-E Phantom, pretty much contemporaries. However the misssion of comaprision would better be served by the F.2 Lightning and the F4-B/C Phantom (quick intercept).

Much more data is available on the F4-E and F.6 planes.

=S=

Lunatic

[evangilder]

Regardless of the model though, the standard load out for interception would be the same, regardless of whether they were flying B/C or E, or whatever model. With all the fuel, and depending on whether or not the Vulcan cannon was being carried, it was heavier than your initial assumptions. The point is, an F-4 could not sustain a vertical climb for as long as a Lightning.

[plan_D]

The standard load-out for a Phantom was four AIM-7s when on QRF. The Lightning carried two Red Tops (or Firestreaks) and it is a fact that from scramble call to take-off the Lightning was quicker.

1965 was F.6 Lightning, 1961 was F.2. A UK gallon weighs 8 lbs. Ever thought your site might be wrong about its weights?

That site really is talking ****. If the RAF prefered Phantoms, why did the Lightnings out live them? 5 Sqn. and 11 Sqn. were still flying Lightnings when all the Phantoms had been replaced by Tornados.

The fact is, the Lightning could climb faster than a Phantom from standstill. The Lightning nor the Phantom had 1:1 thrust:weight, the F-15 was the first to achieve it. The Lightning is one of the greatest interceptors of all time, a lot of American personel seeing them in flight were greatly impressed but is there something that prevents you from accepting its brilliance? Is it that name ENGLISH Electric Lightning?

[evangilder]

I will have to be honest here, despite my patriotic fervor to want an American plane to be better (no offense to the English, BTW), the Lightning was a better interceptor. I have seen both in action and nothing beats the look on the face of an American pilot the first time he sees a Lightning in action. Something like this...

[plan_D]

The Lightning entered service in 1960, the final squadron to convert to Tornado (11 Sqn.) did so on 30th April 1988. Admittedly the final stand down of Phantoms was 43 Sqn. in 1989 but it began conversion (for training) earlier, in 1988.
Remember though the Phantom entered much later than the Lightning. And the Phantom NEVER replaced the Lightning.

[evangilder]

Yes, they were a generation apart, which makes the Lightning even more advanced forit's time. It was a remarkable airplane. I saw it several times and was impressed every time.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Lighting was very advanced for its time and yes the Phantom was a great aircraft also but again how can one really compare two aircraft that were a generation apart. Infact the only thing I like about the Phantom is its looks, but I would compare the Phantom more to aircraft of its time.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The standard load-out for a Phantom was four AIM-7s when on QRF. The Lightning carried two Red Tops (or Firestreaks) and it is a fact that from scramble call to take-off the Lightning was quicker.

1965 was F.6 Lightning, 1961 was F.2. A UK gallon weighs 8 lbs. Ever thought your site might be wrong about its weights?

That site really is talking s**t. If the RAF prefered Phantoms, why did the Lightnings out live them? 5 Sqn. and 11 Sqn. were still flying Lightnings when all the Phantoms had been replaced by Tornados.

The fact is, the Lightning could climb faster than a Phantom from standstill. The Lightning nor the Phantom had 1:1 thrust:weight, the F-15 was the first to achieve it. The Lightning is one of the greatest interceptors of all time, a lot of American personel seeing them in flight were greatly impressed but is there something that prevents you from accepting its brilliance? Is it that name ENGLISH Electric Lightning?

LOL, I have nothing against British (or Russian) planes. I have already accepted that from the word go a cold Lightning beats a cold Phantom to altitude (but a warm Phantom probably beats the EE Lightning by a tiny bit to 60,000 feet). It depends tremendously on how the measurement is being taken and what models are being discussed. For instance, a Carrier Phantom on intercept alert probably beats a Lightning on intercept alert by over a minute, since it's sitting on the catapult warmed up and ready to go and the crew chief would start the engines immeadiately (if they were not already running) if the pilot were not already sitting in it.

As for being a "great interceptor", I have my doubts given the very weak armaments and the nature of the armaments. 4 x Sparrows and 2-4 x Sidewinders beat a pair of Redtop (or firestreak) missiles by a large margin.

As for weights and measures - A US gallon is only about 80% of an Imp. Gallon, all the figures I gave in gallons were in US gallons (UK figures converted from metric). Also, while it is true that a US gallon of gasoline weighs about 7 lbs, a US gallon of jet fuel only weighs about 6 lbs. Jet fuel is lighter than gasoline.

=S=

Lunatic