Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The F-4 Phantom

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by hello View Post
    If it's a Mach 2.8 aircraft, surely it should be able to outclimb the Phantom,
    Well that all depends doesn't it.

    Climb rate is more dependent on power:weight than aerodynamic drag - as is the case in a top speed shootout.

    Not 100% sure, but i don't think the mig-25's power:weight is *that* impressive.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by nutter View Post
      Climb rate is more dependent on power:weight than aerodynamic drag - as is the case in a top speed shootout.
      Here's what globalsecurity.org has to say:

      Given the NATO reporting name 'Foxbat', the MiG-25 was designed to intercept the US B-70 bomber that was to have been capable of Mach 3. The B-70 was never built, however, so the Soviets were left with a long-range interceptor capable of astonishing speed and a phenomenal rate of climb. A MiG-25 can take off and climb to an altitude of 35,000 meters (114,000 ft) in a little over four minutes.
      According to Globalsecurity, the F-4s climb rate is 49,000ft/min but has a ceiling of 60,000ft.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by hello View Post
        It had a nuclear a2a rocket and a big target like the F-4...
        It was useless against a maneuverable target like the F-4.

        Also, how was the Phantom vs the tiny, nimble F-104 Starfighter?
        Better in every regard. The F-104 was not particularly nimble, nor did it carry a big load, nor did it have long legs. And, the F-104 was difficult to fly and more difficult to land.

        I'm asking if the MiG-25 outclimbed the Phantom. If it's a Mach 2.8 aircraft, surely it should be able to outclimb the Phantom, but I don't know for sure.
        It cannot, at least from the ground to about FL 500 +/-.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          F-4 is one of the ugliest fighter ever to be mass produced. Its ugliness is only surpassed by the X-32 Monica.
          Monica is a little heavy, but she's not ugly.

          Comment


          • #65
            The F-4 from a layman's memory

            When deployed to Gitmo with my P2V squadron during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we were damned glad for the F-4s, what with Russian ships trying to get thru the Windward Passage and Raul Casto's troops dug in just beyond the fenceline.

            From our mess hall we could see the runway and watch the F-4s coming and going, and the going was usually vertical. Felt like a boom box at full blast when they released for their run. Silverware rattled on the tables. Someone said they were ugly; they looked muscular to me.
            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by hello View Post
              Here's what globalsecurity.org has to say:



              According to Globalsecurity, the F-4s climb rate is 49,000ft/min but has a ceiling of 60,000ft.
              u are confusing INTIAL climb speed with Time TO altitude...

              Comment


              • #67
                see project high jump...........

                Comment

                Working...
                X