Jet fighters/interceptors of the sizzling 60's?

[Lucky13]

Which would come out on top of the list? Mirage III, F-8 Crusader, MiG-21, Sukhoi-9/11, SAAB 35 Draken, E-E Lightning.......which should be on the list in the first place?

Which had the best performance, radar, weapon system, pilot friendly, operation system (operate outside the airbase like the J-35 Draken)....?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Overall fighter/ interceptor I'd say you have the Mirage III, the F-8 Crusader, the MiG-21 and the F-106. The Crusader was big and maneuverable. The Saab Draken - excellent machine but very short legs (I know the folks who operate them at Mojave Airport at the civilian test pilot school there). A sortie is about 20 minutes.

We can't forget the Lightning as a straight interceptor.

 

[Glider]

A purely personal selection but if I had to put them in order

Crusader - Very good all round aircraft with a good range
Lightning - Interceptor par excellance and was quite sophisticated for its time, but had to keep an eye on the fuel gauge.
Draken - Very good all round aircraft with little range
F106 - The best long ranged interceptor around at the time, but if the missiles miss or you get caught by a dogfighter you could be in trouble. Better at altitude than on the deck where most fighting takes place. I expect FBJ to have some comments on this
Mig 21 - Close with the Mirage but I prefer its wing, handling and agility.
Mirage III - I don't like the delta wing, it bleeds energy like mad in a turn, plus the electronics were minimal on the III and close to non existant on the V.
SU9 - A Wannabe F106 without the range, agility or decent missiles.
F104 - Not on the list but not impressive, dreadfull agility, poor range, lightly armed and so so electronics.

 

[Lucky13]

Is that 20 minutes with full throttle as well? How much longer with extra fuel tanks?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Is that 20 minutes with full throttle as well? How much longer with extra fuel tanks?

Full throttle at take off then running about 92%. With tanks you might be able to get 45 minutes to an hour.

 

[Glider]

The first version of the Draken with an afterburner (the first didn't) could run out of fuel before it reached max speed as they didn't increase the size of the fuel tanks. Almost a record

 

[FLYBOYJ]

F106 - The best long ranged interceptor around at the time, but if the missiles miss or you get caught by a dogfighter you could be in trouble. Better at altitude than on the deck where most fighting takes place. I expect FBJ to have some comments on this.

If flown in the zoom the 106 could be competitive - later in its career it had a gun. It did take a bit to accelerate but one it got going it was a rocket.

 

[Lucky13]

What about the F-4 Phantom? Also, was it the 102 or 106 that had an internal weapon bay for its missiles?

Cheers FLYBOYJ...

 

[pbfoot]

Is that 20 minutes with full throttle as well? How much longer with extra fuel tanks?

Most of the birds back then gulped fuel at tremendous rates I know the J 57 used about 80 Gal per minute in burner the J79 was not much better .
At fuel power the F4 would have about 20 minute fuel , the F101 with 2 tanks had 14 minutes fuel .
If you are defending Delaware or the Isle of Man the Lightning was the machine , but overall the F4 could do it all range , radar,
This is actually 2 different topics interceptors was category unto itself

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What about the F-4 Phantom? Also, was it the 102 or 106 that had an internal weapon bay for its missiles?

Cheers FLYBOYJ...

Both the 102 and 106 had an internal weapons bay. The F-4 had the range for interception as well. Externally it carried the fuel needed and could handle it self it it had to dogfight, but I think the F-106 was a bit better in the interceptor role.

 

[Lucky13]

How does another of the Century birds compare here then, F-100 Super Sabre?

 

[syscom3]

We had a great discussion on this a few years ago.

In the end, the EE Lighting was proved to be the superior interceptor.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How does another of the Century birds compare here then, F-100 Super Sabre?

The F-100 was more of a good tactical fighter bomber although it was touted as an air-to-air fighter. Its main contemporary was the MiG-19 which I feel would of been superior in the air-to-air role in many respects. The F-100C could be a handful on landing as it had no flaps and I do know it had the highest attrition rate in NATO - yes, even higher than the F-104!

 

[pbfoot]

We had a great discussion on this a few years ago.

In the end, the EE Lighting was proved to be the superior interceptor.

I still disagree if the Lightning was so good why was it replaced by a contemporary the F 4 and lightning were both introduced into service in 1960 approx and the Phantom replaced the Lightning in RAF service , if it was so good how come they weren't lining up at the doors to buy it . It had one export sale to the Saudis . It was a spectacular air aircraft but so were every century series fighter but it had 0 range the aircraft when transiting the pond required 7 air to air refuellings 1 less then the mighty F5 .

 

[Lucky13]

Even worse than the Starfighter!? Crikey! Why was that then, was it because it lacked flaps and most accidents happened at landing?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Even worse than the Starfighter!? Crikey! Why was that then, was it because it lacked flaps and most accidents happened at landing?

Hard to say - I know Denmark operated them and also lost many. I think it might of been training and the mission.

 

[pbfoot]

If I recall most of the fighters from that era had fairly high landing speeds in the area of 160 knots or more . As for the F100 did not the French also use them

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If I recall most of the fighters from that era had fairly high landing speeds in the area of 160 knots or more . As for the F100 did not the French also use them

They did and If I remember right the F-100C landed at about 160 knts.

 

[pbfoot]

They did and If I remember right the F-100C landed at about 160 knts.

and a amazing 220 for a flapless 104

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep - I think the F-106 did 180.