Quote:
Originally Posted by hello
I've heard that sometimes, AIM-7 missiles never came off the plane, and sometimes, they just fell away without firing. Other times they fired but just flew straight without guiding, and if closing speeds were too high, it would pass by the target harmlessly. It obviously must have been quite a handful to get 95 factors to work!
|
Any one of the interactions could cause the missile to fail. That, more than anything, lead to the early AIM-7's less than stellar reputation. However, most of the problems were worked out and it really turned out to be a very good weapon.
Quote:
|
How was the F-4 compared to the second-gen F-106 Delta Dart, the USAF's second most powerful fighter?
|
Like all contemporary delta wing fighters, the F-106 built up drag in a turn. It was one of the few aircraft the F-4 could engage in a turning fight and win. Thus, whenever we had the opportunity to do so, we did.
Quote:
|
Also, how did it compare with the MiG-23?
|
That depends on which one you are talking about. The early ones were not all that nimble, especially when compared with the MiG-21. The early aircraft were heavy and underpowered. Further, their avionics were cludgy by Soviet standards. The GCI people had a tough time with them. The lightweight redesign that came along in the mid-70's was a much better machine. It finally had the power and agility one usually associates with MiG machines.
Quote:
|
I don't think that the F-4 was the best climber until the F-15, that probably goes to the MiG-25 Foxbat missile-truck.
|
I do. The MiG-25 was a fine recon bird, but then so too was the A-5.