Ta152-H1 uber-fighter?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

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


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,


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

=S=

Lunatic
 
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
 
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.
 
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 shit. 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?
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 

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
 
Any Naval aircraft that is hook up to the catapult has already been started. It would be just plain dumb to to put a plane on a catapult and then have it not start. Look again at the standard air to air intercept configuration, that was Navy and AF units. That includes 2 drop tanks of 370 gallons each, adding approximately 5,000 lbs!

8 missiles are okay, but what about guns? Two big advantages with guns; you can shoot at more than 8 aircraft and if you need to fire a warning shot or volley, you can't do that with a missile. I simply do not understand why you say the Lightning was not a great interceptor. You are the ONLY person that I have ever heard say that, British or American.

Jet fuel is 6.6 lbs per gallon, by the way.
 

Today that is how they are configured. At the height of the cold war, when intercept missions against Russian intruders were common. They were configured for quick scrambles didn't have external tanks. Typically 2 planes would be up on patrol and two would be maintained in scramble condition sitting on the catapults ready to rock and roll.

Radar guided missiles could be locked on the target, same effect as firing a volley as their internal sensors would go wild, but well out of defensive gun range. Pulling in close enough to fire a meaningful volly of cannon as a warning was a questionable thing, as a Soviet bomber could wax you with its AM-23 or GSH-23 guns if you did so. Given the nature of the cannon on the Lightning, perhaps 3 or 4 targets could be engaged, but the value of guns compared to missiles at that point, especially against bombers, was highly questionable.

FAA sight says 6 lbs per gallon, but it may well be 6.6 lbs.

=S=

Lunatic
 
There is no today with the F-4. The last F-4s in US service were retired in 1996. They are not even flown by guard or reserve units anymore. They are missile drones now. The standard air to air configuration was used during the cold war. The reference that I supplied was written in 1988, and that configuration had been in use for quite some time. They added the guns in the enhanced version because they saw the need for them. Radar lock does have effect, but tracers past your canopy have an even greater effect.

You can continue to defend your position, but you really need more reference material. Talk to some guys that actually flew them. I'm done, the facts are there. How you choose to interpret them or try to deny them is completely up to you.
 
By "today" I meant in the 80's, I should have been more clear.

My Dad flew phantoms a bit, and commanded a whole attack wing of them (but could no longer go "in country" in VN by that point). I've heard stories about the pilots sitting in the Phantoms on the catapults ready to launch for hours.

We're talkin 1965 here right? I think I've even got footage of mid-60's Phantoms scrambling of carrier decks with only missiles as ext. stores.

But all that is mute. The topic was time-to-climb figures. More specifically, it was late-WWII era fighter performance.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Two Firestreaks is perfectly adequete to bring down Soviet intruders. Obviously, with your over-American patriotism, you'd want the Lightning with two Sidewinders which as it happens, the Lightning was being tested with in the 70s-80s. It was decided that instead of WASTING money on these new missiles, the old stock Firestreaks did the job just as well against the Soviet aircraft.

You are the only person I have ever come across that has called the Lightning a bad interceptor. I can understand it actually, you were sure a Bearcat could beat an EE Lightning to 10,000 feet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
583
spicmart
S
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
B
63 Fighter Squadron plane
Replies
4
Views
533
Snautzer01
R
A look at German fighter Ace kill claims
24 25 26
Replies
506
Views
25K
Juha3
J
Menu
Log in
Register