Was the F-4 Phantom II the best aircraft ever made?

It may have been, but now the F35 exists.

>>28569930
Stealth F4 phantom.

>>28569901
Define "best".

>>28569901
24% of the F-35 is made up of titanuim version of F-4 phantom parts. They even thought about using the phantoms ejector seat because of the issues the 35 program is having.

>>28569901
Why do people like it so much? I used to live by one on display. I really dont know much shit anout it.

File: turn rate comparison of F-16 and F-4 fighters.jpg (40KB, 660x828px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 660x828px

>>28569901
>best aircraft ever made?
well, it almost the F-35 of the 70s

>>28570042
Haven't you seen Sale of the Century? The F16 was the F35 of the 1970s

File: combatcaravan.jpg (21KB, 650x365px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 650x365px

Well there are various categories of aircraft.

>Fighter
P-51 Mustang
Runner up: Spitfire

>Bomber:
B-52
Runner up: B-29

>Transport
C-17
Runner up: DC-3

>Attack:
A-10
Runner up: Su-25

>Multirole
F-16
Runner up: F-18

File: Tunnan.jpg (30KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 800x600px

No. J29 was

>>28570069
This? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM

>>28570511
I love the Swedish AF roundel. Def my favorite roundel.

>>28570486
>Fighter
>P-51

well, in the end it was a very good plane, but it really wasnt very good before it got the Merlin in 43 (i think, could be wrong)

Best all time is proboably the F-4. isnt really many things that thing couldnt do. and they are still being flown (or maybe it goes in the multirole category?)

and the F-15 deserves a mention aswell

for WWII i'd vote for the Spit, it was in service and full scale production from day one until the end, and was only really inadequate some months when the first variants of the Fw 190 were rolled out. otherwise, the Typhoon/ Tempests peformed very well

>Bomber
>B-52
yes. easily

>transport
yeah, you are pretty much spot on with the DC-3/C-47. those glorious things went from civilian, to military and back. and they still fly today

>attack
i'm gonna leave out all the cool but very inefficient WWII planes because they had... mixed results. FF was pretty common and accuracy was poor on a good day

>A10
well, the amount of dedicated attack planes nowadays is limited. maybe AD-1 for pure style points

>multirole
The F-4 should maybe go in this category? if not its either the planes you mentioned or one of the eurotriangles.

>>28569901
Technically yes.

>>28570511
Did it ever even do anything?

>>28570486
>>28570843
why not the c-130 for transport? It's been in service since the 50's and it's still an integral part of the US military logistics

File: f-4_rafale_eater_3.jpg (102KB, 450x517px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 450x517px

>>28569901
Yes

>>28571185
C-17 is first aircraft that could tactically airlift an armored brigade. You aren't putting an Abrams on a C-130.

C-130 is good and reliable, but didn't necessarily revolutionize airlift like the DC-3 and C-17 have.

File: 41829169_0995c246cc_o.jpg (56KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x525px

>>28571185
>i forgot the hercules

well, my excuse is jerking of to large piston engines, and i am sticking to it

also, it could even pick people up from the ground!

>>28570486
Your use of WW2 planes leads me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about. DC-3 instead of oh, i don't know the C-130?, the workhorse of our logistics system?
So many better choices for The runner up to the B-52 that i am ashamed of you for choosing the B-29.

>>28570042
There needs to be more of this.

I'd like to see the Mig-21.

>>28571283
Hercules uses a turboprop (no pistons).

>>28571307
read
>>28571242

The C-130 wasn't revolutionary, and it's far from the workhorse that the C-17 now fills.

B-29 is there because of it's reliability and performance during WW2. Go back to /b/ with your faggot friends.

>>28571322
yeah ofc, but i meant the pistons on the C-47. speaking of, have you heard the glorious sound a merlin spits out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5rGyP6SSYM

>>28571338
anon, the B-29 was many things, but it was not very reliable when first rolled out in '44(?). engine fires were not that uncommon

File: F-18E.jpg (102KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1200x800px

>>28571451
Oh boy, is it /lewd/ time?

File: undersides_Fairey_Gannet_fs.jpg (37KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x533px

>>28571470

File: 1451863081098.jpg (160KB, 800x466px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 800x466px

>Nooo, anon, don't look! ;~;

>>28571338
>B-52
>20,000lb payload

>Not choosing the B-1 75,000-50,000lb payload
>Not choosing the B-2 50,000-20,000lb payload
>Not choosing the B-36 87,200lb payload
>Not choosing the B-47 20,000lb payload

Bombing Asian people is cool, i see why the B-52. But choosing the B-29 is a lack of imagination.

>tfw 50's America made the Coolest Bombers.

File: F-4 %22Rafale Eater%22 wide.jpg (143KB, 580x395px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 580x395px

>>28570042
I wonder about that photo... what variant of F-16 is it? What mach number is it at?

As pigfat as current F-16Cs are, I reckon they would have a much harder time outturning a Phantom, particularly at subsonic speeds.

File: Carswell Bomber Static Display (Based B-36).jpg (2MB, 2960x1908px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2960x1908px

>>28571693
>Not choosing the B-36 87,200lb payload

It's not really a contest if you compare much anything to the Peacemaker, who, I might add, has one of the coolest names ever given to an aircraft, imo.

>>28571982

It's probably got more to do with L/D, T/W, and so on than it does with just simply weight, but I could be wrong.

I will admit, CFT's make the Viper butt ugly. Slender planefu or go home

File: Viper.jpg (397KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1440x900px

>>28572133

Forgot pic.

File: Viper Takeoff.jpg (188KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1152x864px

>>28572133
>>28572142

Bonus pic to atone for my blunder.

eats rafales eats f-22s so yess

>>28569970
Do you have a source for any of that?

>>28571693
>20k payload
I've always heard 70000, don't know about Big Belly B-52Ds though.

>>28572263
I'm a retard and put B-52 instead of B-29.

File: bb78fcb2cde8684a2c7a1a63fe40e979.jpg (65KB, 736x486px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 736x486px

>>28571693
the B-36 is one of those planes that should have done so much more

>230ft wingspan, largest combat aircraft since the ice age
>up to 16 20mm autocannons
>10 engines, totalling 25800 hp and 20000lbf of thrust
>counting props only the power is equal to 3 B29s, 5.5 B17s, 10 P47s, 17 P51s, or over 200 Po-2 biplanes
>the jets put out thrust equaling 3 F86s, 4 P80s, 6 DH Vampires or an entire F4 for extra woosh
>cervice cieling of up to 50k ft, which is not that far away from the MiG-15
>provision for the T12 Cloudmaker, basically a 20 ton armor-piercing cock with a hardened case, filled to the brim with explosives, that will after a supersonic decent penetrate some 150 ft of concrete. The B-36 carried two of these
>it also served as a testbed for a FLYING NUCLEAR REACTOR, wich was ever running during some flight, easily making it greenpeaces worst nightmare
>it also was used for dragging its own fighters with it, not that it worked very well but still. it was even considered for the role of giving birth to an XF-85 midair, for reasons in practicular
>later recon variants carried so much fuel it needed two sets of crew, and mission sometimes lasted over 24 hours, with maximum endurance being over 50 hours
>spending this mauch time in the air, the plane could travel up to 11000 miles
>it had a railway over the two bomb bays
>a fucking railway
>there was a cargo variant with a 100.000 lbs payload
>civ variant with 200 passengers planned

all this had to die in 1959. WHY

>>28572387

She was too beautiful, too pure for this ugly, ugly world ;-;

>>28569901
Colossal piece of shit. Weird angles on empannage and wingtip due to massive laminar flow separation in prototypes particularly at transsonic speeds. They basically n-rigged it to make it work

File: swedish_ufo_interception_by_alfredsson.jpg (390KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1200x720px

>>28571121
dogfighting ufos and saving the motherland

>>28572133
>It's probably got more to do with L/D, T/W, and so on than it does with just simply weight
That would be the case for sustained maneuvering, but for instantaneous maneuvering it's about wing loading and maximum lift coefficient. In BOTH cases weight does matter quite a bit.

That all of course assumes you're subsonic and below your corner speed, of course. Above corner speed, G-limits come into play. And at high mach, mach tuck can limit your ability to reach high AoA and thus to turn - especially if the jet had a significant positive static margin to begin with (i.e. everything without relaxed stability and FBW).

>>28572614

Putting all that aside for the moment, aren't we talking about sustained maneuvering?

I was under the assumption that's what the Viper vs Phantom pic I responded to was trying to point out...?

File: yb-60-on-its-third-flight-this-aircraft-was-an-experimental-bomber-prototype-for-the-united-states-air-force.jpg (164KB, 1500x1063px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1500x1063px

>>28572387

it was also retrofitted with turbojets, swept wings and tail as a prototype in case the B-52 didn't cut it

>>28570486
p51? the best american fighter was the jug, and it's no tempest, dora, or f8f

>>28572662
I'm talking about the photo, which doesn't appear sustained at all judging by the decreasing radii of the turns.

File: 1318990594499.jpg (656KB, 3000x2318px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 3000x2318px

>>28571495

File: 2835150637_db92a1e412_o.jpg (313KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 800x533px

>>28575795

>>28574509

Pretty much, although the P-47 would go under multirole...

File: SAAB_37_Viggen_5.jpg (356KB, 900x629px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 900x629px

>>28570511
No Saab 37 Viggen was

File: STIRRING.jpg (45KB, 767x560px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 767x560px

>>28569958
You win lad

>>28572387
It could actually out dogfight a MiG or f-86 at its operational altitude. Where the fighters control surfaces and thrust limited their rate of climb, turn and roll, the B-36 had almost 60% of their turning radius.

>>28578965
what the fuck. you mean the B-36 could actually out-turn a fighter at that altitude? i'd guess you cant roll a MiG-15 very much at that alt, because it needs ALL the lift the wings can give just to stay level?

>>28571121
I think it did some stuff in Kongo and set a whole bunch of world records for speed etc

File: 0aaff76d976e.jpg (408KB, 2500x1773px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 2500x1773px

>best aircraft ever made?
>not T-10

>>28578965
Prove your claims pls

File: 1452125748967.jpg (2MB, 5100x3996px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5100x3996px

Sr-71 still best plane-fu

File: 1429206.jpg (252KB, 1280x866px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1280x866px

>>28569901
OP i think its the MIG-25.

I would like to point out that besides it having a 2 engines, It also proved to be very effective against the modern 4th generation jet fighters if equipped well it can shoot down an F/A-18.

If modernized with navigation systems, digital optronic systems and night vision capable screens. Then it probably serve well as an Air Superiority Fighter/Bomber Aircraft.

>>28579658
>Then it probably serve well as an Air Superiority Fighter
>Oops!
>I accidentally 5g and things are falling of the aircraft.

>>28572522
>is such a thing even possible?
>Sweden yes

>>28579573
mig-25 is only slightly slower than sr-72 but it's infinitely more practical aircraft
>>28579658
agreed.
although it wouldn't be a good bomber, it's scary as fuck to fly it at low altitude.
>>28580110
one did 11g by accident and survived

>>28569901
>make power fighter
>arm it with state-of-the-art radar guided missiles
>don't bother with gun, because missiles will kill enemy before he even sees Phantom

>use it with ROE that say pilot is not allowed to shot without visual ID of target first
>which is bellow minimal effective range of missiles
Who else but America?

>>28580359
>mig-25 is only slightly slower than sr-72 but it's infinitely more practical aircraft
Except it can't maintain Mach 2.8+ without burning out its engines.
The engines are also prone to runaway at high mach and just keep accelerating until they burned out, basically turning into a ramjet and ignore throttle input.

Also goes through fuel like crazy and has a limited range because of it.

>one did 11g by accident and survived
Except it was scraped because the air frame was too deformed.
Also with full tanks the G-limit is 2.5G, but on the plus side it has no upper speed limit to where it can maneuver and it could pull 4G turns at mach 2.5.

>>28580671
Design top speed is Mach 2.83.
But one plane was clocked at Mach 3.2 and that's why it 's engines had to be scrapped.

>>28580359
>mig-25 is only slightly slower than sr-72 but it's infinitely more practical aircraft
>>28580769
>Design top speed is Mach 2.83.

>Mach 2.83 is SLIGHTLY slower than Mach 3.5.
Ok then.

File: F-111_03.jpg (232KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1500x1000px

>>28570486
Best interdictor/strike aircraft.

File: mig25bm5.jpg (49KB, 700x452px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 700x452px

>>28579658
Well they did make the MiG-25BM with bombing capabilities, but it was more for lobbing cruise missiles modified to target radars at a standoff range than really bomb anything.

>>28571470
holy shit a Mk 81

File: 111103-F-KX404-321.jpg (1MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4256x2832px

>>28572113
>not choosing the B-1 with its 140,000lb payload

It's like you don't even fast

File: 1445276545569.jpg (4MB, 4670x2902px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4670x2902px

I remember in an old thread like this one that someone tried to convince us that the MiG-21 was the most successful fighter in history.

He was blatantly wrong, but he was a tenacious bugger.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2012x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2012x3000px

>>28586557
>tfw F-5 was pretty much an American MiG-21 but better in just about every way.
>tfw it is only remembered for Top Gun.
>tfw no F-20

>>28586265
>can't even fucking land correctly

File: no_fucks_given.jpg (51KB, 462x334px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 462x334px

>>28586715
I thought they were pretty cool in Apocalypse Now even if they were only in there for 20 seconds or so

File: FA-50_Fighting_Eagle_Test_Flight.jpg (2MB, 2500x1875px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2500x1875px

>>28586715

I wonder what the 'next' F-5E will be for US aligned countries? It seemed like it was going to be the Gripen but it looks like the FA-50 is even cheaper