WTF

[Angels49]

I was surfing the net, caused by a statement in another post about the differences between the FG1 and the FGR1, one thing led to another and the origins of both popped up. OK here's where things got all mucked about. According to different sites on the good ol' WWW ( ) our beloved F-4 could according to one site do a max of 1,386 mph, and on another it is a little higher at 1,485mph (according to Boeing who now owns all rights), Ok you say happens all the time, now wait a min. I'm not thru......According to the same WWW an F-106 of '50's vintage could do 1,525 mph . How in the hell can a later aircraft on Two more powerful engines not fly as fast an older one on a single.....Hold on. Ok granted the '6 was lighter OK fine; still only had one engine. the F-4 was a little bigger riiiiiiight, also had two count'em two more powerful engines.....I tell ya somethings not right according to stuff I've read before this ain't true........WTF is going on here who the hell's right and who's wrong!!!!!!. None of the websites said anything about configurations so I'm assuming (oh jeeeeeeez) that both aircraft were in a clean config. I was not around '6's that much so I don't know a lot about them. Only what I've read and that IMHO leaves somethin to be desired.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Angels49

[model_madness]

Simple Century Series jets rule.

They were light years ahead of their time in design and engineering.

They may have only had 1 engine, but aerodynamically they wee weed on the F-4.

Broke speed, altitude records that weren't beaten for decades to come.

No fugly phantom could compete with a F-106/104 or even the mighty Thud;)

Clearer now Cliffie?

Kevin - Die Hard 100 series fan

Edited February 16, 2008 by model_madness

[Richard M]

1,386 mph in forward flight.

1,485mph flying it in reverse (as it's more aerodynamic )

Wasn't the F-4 a demonstration excercise, in that if you strap big enough engines to anything you can get it to go fast.

Best

Rich

[Angels49]

Simple Century Series jets rule.

Clearer now Cliffie?

Kevin - Die Hard 100 series fan

In a sense yes, then NO!!, it still befuddles me how, but I guess I'll never understand p*l*tic* and military hardware purchases, don't get me wrong the toom is probably one of my most favorite aircraft, buuuuuuuutt. It seems the '6 outperformed it in some aspects, then again some of the gear in Iraq.......nevermind I don't want to go down the road a few posts have gone lately...Thanks Kev for your input. I guess the old adage the truth hurts carries even into my love of aircraft.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Angels49

[Dave Fleming]

Speed isn't everything - and the Century series top speeds were without all the things they had to hang on them (like tanks to get them beyond the end of the runway)

[J35 Draken]

Well the J79 engined Phantoms we're Mach 0.07 faster than the Spey engined versions, so that could be why there's confusion between the top speeds?

[Mike]

How turnable were the century series compared to a phantom? Weapons load? Their intended sphere of operation? Could you see a zipper doing ground attack? Weren't at least some of the century series straightforward fast interceptors (like the Lightning), where dog-fighting capability would have been limited?

Just a few half-assed ponderings

[Alan P]

Yep! the 106 was designed as a high altitude air defence interceptor - to get high as fast as possible and launch long-range missiles at incoming Russian bombers to intercept beyond standoff missile launch range. It was delta winged for maximum aerodynamic performance at altitude (like Concorde, plus numerous other high-speed research designs).

 

The Phantom was a Navy requirement for a hi-lo altitude missile and radar platform to, errm, intercept incoming Russian bombers beyond standoff missile range again, but needed to be robust enough to operate from a carrier. This meant high wing loading and good low-speed performance so that your jet jockey could see the carrier as he made his approach at low speed - something a delta could never do.

 

It's horses for courses - I'm sure there are plenty of good examples of this in the modern arena - the Tornado vs the F-15E in the low-altitude bomber role for example?

 

EDIT: just thought of something else - Mach no. varies with temperature, and therefore altitude - if the 106 was doing 1,525mph at 50,000ft, this wouldn't be as impressive as a Toom doing 1,485 at 38,000ft. Operating altitude makes a big difference.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Alan P

[upnorth]

Comparing the Phantom to an F-106 is right on the same level as all those folks who felt it was right to compare the F-18 to the Tomcat. Its a stilted comparison at best.

The F-106, like most of the century series, was an aircraft designed for singularity of purpose and everything within its design was focused upon that singular purpose. Rapid reaction beyond visual range intercepts. In that, speed was paramount, every aspect of the design had to feed into blistering speed above all else.

The Phantom, on the other hand, was one of those aircraft that ended up needing to answer to McNamara's edict of an all singing, all dancing combat aircraft for all branches of the service. Speed was still important, but not in all aspects. It had to be sacrificed a bit so the Navy could safely get it back aboard the carriers. Once the Marines and USAF started using it for mudmoving, it needed something the F-106 never did: armor. That'd slow it down quite a bit and ensure that it could take a pounding that the 106 never could and still stand a chance of getting home.

Its like that F-18 or F-14 debate, you're comparing two different aircraft that were designed for different enough purposes that you shouldn't be comparing them anyway.

Its like comparing a meat cleaver to a Swiss army knife: One was designed to do a single job to the exception of anything else and the other to have the flexibility to do a variety of jobs (often in the same mission) and flip between them with minimal difficulty.

The Phantom's armor, multirole systems, substantially robust construction and all else that was designed to make it so survivable and flexible are a big part of why it needed two engines in the first place; a great deal of that extra thrust is offset by a whole lot more extra weight than the single engine of the F-106 was ever asked to haul around.

You can't compare the speeds of two machines to each other accurately, without also comparing their respective weights to each other. I should imagine there was a marked weight difference between the Phantom and the 106.

[dahut]

You'll go nuts trying to sort all this out. Delta's are "draggy" and the engines in the F-4 were leaps ahead of the ones on the 106. That'll suffice. It's just not worth it to stagnate and die in analysis of further minutae.

In all all things, go with Kev:

Century Series jets ruled first and foremost. Everything else derives from them.

[Leigh]

Area Rule !

that and the Phantom was was slowed down by having to drag two giant plumes of smoke.

[hatchet]

Could you see a zipper doing ground attack?

You could ask that question to Germany and Canada boss

[Angels49]

Could you see a zipper doing ground attack?

Just a few half-assed ponderings

That "Missile with a man in it" I don't see how it had much room for fuel. The wing cells probably carried 1L each, which got used up on start up . It did have wings tanks and that extended the range some, but when it carried "winders" well....I think it suffices to say it was a short legged interceptor only. reeeeeeeal short legs.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Angels49