Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-4 Vs F-14  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3677 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15830 times:

With everybody getting upset with the Tomcat being replace with the super hornet (including me) got me to thinking how did people take the F-4 Phantom retirement. I also know the F-4 was the fastest plane the U.S. Navy ever had and it could out run the F-14. Was the F-4 louder than the F-14, I been told it's afterbuner or much better than a F-14. So how was the F-4 phantom compared to the F-14 Tomcat.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15855 times:

I don't remember people getting that upset because of the replacement of the F-4. The F-14 had capabilities that the F-4 did not have, such as the Phoenix weapons control system, which allowed it to engage six (as I recall) targets simultaneously.

That said, I'm fairly sure there were naysayers then, as well.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15843 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I also know the F-4 was the fastest plane the U.S. Navy ever had and it could out run the F-14.

Actually the RA-5C Vigilante was...powered by the same J79 engines, but a hell of alot cleaner.

Just screams fast.

Among other things, the F-14 had a gun...something the F-4 failed to tote, unless you hauled some gunpods along. You don't miss it until you get close enough to read the enemy's side number- then you cursed MDD  Wink

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineERAUMcDlover From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15785 times:

If you remember right though, Deltaguy, it didn't have a gun because of our military geniuses at the time. I think they were both greatly respected aircraft, yet I give the F-4 the edge, a few reasons;
F-4 was the only aircraft to ever serve the USAF, USN, and USMC at the same time, pretty good plane.
The F-4 was until the F-16 the most produced western military aircraft, and is still in service many places.
The F-4 served both the T-birds, and the Angels.

On a more serious note, I think the Phabulous Phantom also wins, because its potential was realized from the get go, The Tom didn't earn the bombs until late in its career, maybe if we'd used it more for TARPS and the strike role, we would've bought more, and used them more and for longer.
My opinion.
Rhodes



DL, what a classy lady....Mad Dogs...a classy plane.....USA...just the best all around
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15777 times:

The dual-engine F-4 and the Vigilante both have a single tail fin, if I'm not mistaken. Since then, the majority of our fighters seem to have been designed with dual tail fins -- the F-14, the F-15, the F-22, and JSF. Exceptions including the F-5 (and its unpopular derivative, the F-20) and F-16, all of which are single-engine fighters. (The JSF is also a single-engine fighter but it has two tail fins.) I wonder why that is.

The F-111, which I think of as being a Vietnam-era plane, is also dual-engined but single tail-finned.

I wonder if the F-14's dual tail fin design was seen as a design advance.

Also, the F-4 wasn't a swing-wing (variable-geometry wing) design, was it?


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2116 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15771 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):
The dual-engine F-4 and the Vigilante both have a single tail fin, if I'm not mistaken. Since then, the majority of our fighters seem to have been designed with dual tail fins -- the F-14, the F-15, the F-22, and JSF. Exceptions including the F-5 (and its unpopular derivative, the F-20) and F-16, all of which are single-engine fighters. (The JSF is also a single-engine fighter but it has two tail fins.) I wonder why that is.

I wonder if the F-14's dual tail fin design was seen as a design advance.

The F-111, which I think of as being a Vietnam-era plane, is also dual-engined but single tail-finned.


Also, the F-4 wasn't a swing-wing (variable-geometry wing) design, was it?

The F-5 is twin engined, as is its sister the T-38 and its child, the F-20.

I think the dual tail design was to cut down on the tail size, with the Tomcat weighing in at almost 70,000lbs and with the need to fit on in the hangar.

The F-4 was not swing wing.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 1):
I don't remember people getting that upset because of the replacement of the F-4. The F-14 had capabilities that the F-4 did not have, such as the Phoenix weapons control system, which allowed it to engage six (as I recall) targets simultaneously.

Yep, the 14 could track 24 targets from over 100 miles away, and simultaneously engage 6 of them.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 15758 times:

^^Thanks for the correction.

I'd forgotten that the F-5, T-38, and F-20 were dual-engined. They're so small and agile, and seem to be more of an F-16-class aircraft, somehow I got confused them with single-engine aircraft.

Now that you mention it, wasn't one of the Tigershark's selling points that it had two engines whereas the Fighting Falcon (a.k.a. Electric Jet) only had one?

[Edited 2005-12-27 04:52:29]

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days ago) and read 15749 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 5):
The F-5 is twin engined, as is its sister the T-38 and its child, the F-20.

Not to nitpick, but the F-20 was single-engined.  Smile


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days ago) and read 15748 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):
The dual-engine F-4 and the Vigilante both have a single tail fin, if I'm not mistaken

North American originally had a double vertical tail scheme for the Vigilante but the Navy wanted a single fin. Better aerodynamics with two fins.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 2):
Actually the RA-5C Vigilante was...powered by the same J79 engines, but a hell of alot cleaner.

Actually the A-5 was a bit sportier than the RA-5 because it was lighter, but the RA-5 could best the F-4 especially in combat because of the F-4 carrying external stores.
The F-14D had a higher top end speed than the Vigi.

Quoting ERAUMcDlover (Reply 3):
The Tom didn't earn the bombs until late in its career, maybe if we'd used it more for TARPS and the strike role, we would've bought more, and used them more and for longer.

The F-14's ground attack capability was still born early on because the sharply escalating costs forced the Navy to buy too few of them for anything other than fighter roles....Which the Fighter Mafia happily agreed with.
The RA-5 could do a whole lot more than just take pictures. In the late '60s its recce package matched that of the SR-71. I can tell you the RA-5 was sorely missed in Lebanon. TARPS in those days was pretty miserable, and it's not a toatl recce system like the RA-5/IOIC was.
Through the '80s the navy became the SR-71's biggest customer.



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2116 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15724 times:

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 7):
Not to nitpick, but the F-20 was single-engined.

Ah, my nitpicking got nitpicked.  Smile

You are indeed correct sir.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15720 times:

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 8):
Actually the A-5 was a bit sportier than the RA-5 because it was lighter

Sure was, my uncle flew both....too bad the Navy ditched the Heavy Attack role, although that linear bomb bay had it's share of problems. Either way, would have loved to have seen either of them fly. Unfortunately the last one was parked well before I was born, and there's very few even on display.

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 8):
North American originally had a double vertical tail scheme for the Vigilante but the Navy wanted a single fin.

Very impressed that you remembered that- most folks know next to nothing about this rare plane. I have a nice old A-5 Vigilante In Action book that depicts that original twin tail design- very odd looking by what we considered normal back then.

Actually going to go pay respects to the aircraft next week, going to the Pensacola museum with my family- this RA-5C in the museum, interestingly enough, was ferried to the museum by my uncle, right before the last squadron disbanded- had his name on it for quite some time.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gregg Stansbery



Anyways, sorry for the tangent  

DeltaGuy

[Edited 2005-12-27 07:28:16]

User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 15706 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 10):
Anyways, sorry for the tangent

Don't be.


User currently offlineAislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15693 times:

Finally, after years of reading the posts, I get to join the forum.

Anyhow, the F-14 is a heck of a lot more imposing. Aside from the F-15, would you want anything in your armory than some F-14s and a couple of crews who knew their stuff. The F-4 was great in its time, but it suffered from the lack of missiles of anything near today's standards. The Vigilante never got as much credit.
How many Vigilantes were made?



"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15689 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 10):
Quoting Sidishus (Reply 8):
North American originally had a double vertical tail scheme for the Vigilante but the Navy wanted a single fin.

Very impressed that you remembered that- most folks know next to nothing about this rare plane.

Here is a picture of the twin tailed mockup:

http://members.tripod.com/rvah12_naskeywest/id465.htm

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 10):
Actually going to go pay respects to the aircraft next week, going to the Pensacola museum with my family- this RA-5C in the museum, interestingly enough, was ferried to the museum by my uncle, right before the last squadron disbanded- had his name on it for quite some time.

Your uncle and I were in some of the same places at the same time. The museum Vigi got loose in Hurricane Ivan and it appeared to take some damage. Let us know how it fared.

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 12):
How many Vigilantes were made?

A total of 156 of the various types were produced. So a small run and expensive. The RA-5c in 2005 dollars would cost something on the order of 114 million bucks!

But back to the thread...

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Was the F-4 louder than the F-14, I been told it's afterbuner or much better than a F-14.

Both were about the same in afterburner, but I will opine the "whooping" of the J-79s of the F-4s were more intrusive than the F-14's TF-30s when low and slow. I still say neither compared to the bothersome noise made by the F3H Demon though.

While the J79s were smoky which was a tactical disadvantage, the TF-30 on the F-14 was (guess I should say "is" a little while longer) just a terrible engine.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
With everybody getting upset with the Tomcat being replace with the super hornet (including me) got me to thinking how did people take the F-4 Phantom retirement.

I think the Fighter Pukes-err-Types pretty much welcomed the airplane with the exception of the Crusader drivers. They pretty much didn't want anybody else in the airplane with them. They were the progenitors of the current stable of Bug drivers.

[Edited 2005-12-27 11:46:53]


the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 15663 times:

Thanks for the correction of the correction in regard to the F-20, guys. I guess I was right about the one-engine status of the Tigershark after all, but I was still wrong about the F-5.

All these variants... all these facts to keep track of!  Big grin


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 15579 times:

The F-4 was not as lamented because it was replaced by something clearly superior, capable from the outset of so much more. The F-14 is being replaced by an airplane not as capable in terms of speed, range and warload/weapons, but which is more serviceable, has more room for electronics growth and less expensive to maintain in terms of manhours.


Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 2):
Among other things, the F-14 had a gun...something the F-4 failed to tote, unless you hauled some gunpods along. You don't miss it until you get close enough to read the enemy's side number- then you cursed MDD

It was only the early models of the F-4 that were gunless. Experience forced the inclusion of a 20mm installed under the nose of the airplane on later versions.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):
and its unpopular derivative, the F-20)

It was not unpopular, quite the contrary...pilots loved it. Yeager said it was a very sweet flyer......it forced Lockheed and the US government to offer the upgraded versions of the F-16 to nations that were looking hard at the F-20 Tigershark. With the F-16 F404 engine and the electronics it was a tremendous airplane, especially for the money. Northrop actually spent their own money developing and marketing this airplane and it was killed by politics and economics (the F-16 had scale working for it and the F-5 was already dead as a new build airplane).



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 15573 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
It was not unpopular, quite the contrary...pilots loved it. Yeager said it was a very sweet flyer......it forced Lockheed and the US government to offer the upgraded versions of the F-16 to nations that were looking hard at the F-20 Tigershark.

I see. Thank you for that clarification. To refine my comments, the reason that I said "unpopular" is that it was intended as an export aircraft, but didn't find a single customer. I think I remember reading, years ago, that foreign governments were curious why the F-20 would be offered when the USAF itself didn't want it. By the use of the term I didn't mean to denigrate its capabilities, which quite possibly were very impressive. Northrop then, as Northrop Grumman is today, was a most capable manufacturer.

As for its declination by our military, I thank you for the insight that it was politics, and not performance, that contributed to this condition. Further, as I recall, the F-20 was largely intended for foreign markets by government policy.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 15567 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
It was only the early models of the F-4 that were gunless. Experience forced the inclusion of a 20mm installed under the nose of the airplane on later versions.

Navy F-4's never got an internal gun like the USAF did with the F-4E.


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15507 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
With everybody getting upset with the Tomcat being replace with the super hornet (including me) got me to thinking how did people take the F-4 Phantom retirement. I also know the F-4 was the fastest plane the U.S. Navy ever had and it could out run the F-14. Was the F-4 louder than the F-14, I been told it's afterbuner or much better than a F-14. So how was the F-4 phantom compared to the F-14 Tomcat.

The F4 gradually faded away where the F14 is being retired. The F4 made its rounds, Navy-Marines-Air Force & they kind of started to be retired little by little, of course, the F4 did not have a starring role in a major movie that everybody saw...... Smile



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineMjstormtrooper From United States of America, joined May 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13688 times:

The F-14 Tomcat doesn't settle for second place..

User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1881 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13574 times:

Mainly what I remember about F-4s were pilots that like to glide in to about 50 feet above our heads at 0 dark thirty and kick in the afterburner. Always nice to be awaken by something that sounded like the end of the world, and have your brain turned to jelly.


Andy Goetsch
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-4 Vs F-14
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F-22A Vs F-14 Which One Sound Better? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 17:33:07 by 747400sp
F-4 Vs F-14 posted Mon Dec 26 2005 20:48:45 by 747400sp
F-14 Vs F-15 Which Sound Better? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 17:34:09 by 747400sp
Data On The F-14 Vs. F/A-18 Super Hornet. posted Fri Jun 21 2002 23:03:18 by CX747
F-14 Vs F-18 posted Mon Oct 29 2001 14:34:11 by Warlord
F-14 Vs F-15 posted Sat Sep 29 2001 09:06:44 by Sin777er
Mil Mi -17 At Klex 4/14 posted Tue Apr 17 2012 05:43:04 by gulfstream650
S-IC Stage Vs. SRBs Question posted Sat Mar 24 2012 10:00:30 by Thrust
Iran Vs. The Super Tankers posted Tue Jan 3 2012 16:08:48 by cmb56
Rafale Vs Typhoon Again In The UAE posted Sun Nov 13 2011 06:21:48 by Devilfish

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format