Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ames!pacbell!att!cbnews!military From: mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: F-4 : really an interceptor Message-ID: <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 26 Jun 89 03:45:11 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 22 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Michael J. Tighe > Oh contraire! The F-14 was built to replace one of the best naval fighters > around, the F-4 Phantom. The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense interceptor, not a fighter. Sure they tried to turn it into one, but it wasn't. Those J-79 engines put out so much smoke, you could see it for miles. Early versions didn't even have a cannon. It wasn't very maneuverable either. Migs could run circles around it. And it had two seats. (see below). > ...had some requirements left over from the then terminated F-111B. They > were 1) tandem two-seat twin engined aircraft... By fighter pilot definition, any aircraft that has two seats, or air-to- ground capability, cannot be a fighter. :-) ------------- Michael Tighe internet: mjt@super.org uunet: ...!uunet!super!mjt