747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:48 am

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.
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:55 am

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.
What's fair is fair.
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:19 am

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
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
ERAUMcDlover
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:16 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:23 am

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
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:11 am

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?
What's fair is fair.
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:44 am

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!
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:49 pm

^^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]
What's fair is fair.
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:21 pm

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
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:35 pm

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
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:05 pm

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!
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:19 pm

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]
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:44 pm

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

Don't be.
 
aislepathlight
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:34 pm

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?
bleepbloop
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 pm

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
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:47 pm

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
What's fair is fair.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:59 am

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?
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:32 am

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.
What's fair is fair.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4922
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:49 am

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:49 am

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
 
mjstormtrooper
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 4:54 am

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Tue May 13, 2008 7:50 am

The F-14 Tomcat doesn't settle for second place..
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: F-4 Vs F-14

Thu May 15, 2008 12:30 am

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.
Anon
 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos