Happy Birthday Phantom.
Just saw the photo is backwards. ;0
Happy Birthday Phantom.
Just saw the photo is backwards. ;0
I've made those myself last summer:
![]()
Having been designed as a naval fighter, I would guess that the F-4 had fairly decent low-speed handling, at least for its size. However, my understanding is that it was never particularly agile, and smaller aircraft could very easily outmaneuver it in a turning battle. In Vietnam, F-4 drivers relied more on the power of its engines, which allowed them to disengage at will from any fight by simply out-accelerating and out-climbing their opponent, then reengage under more favorable circumstances.
Always been one of my favorites! It's proof that a brick with wings can fly.
Beautiful beast.![]()
Wonderful beast of a plane.![]()
Great thread!
I was assigned to this squadron while I was in,I do miss looking at that mountain range in the mornings....another time,another place
VMFA-235
I
And sister squadrons,-212,-232
![]()
Kaneohe MCAS!
Woot! They were still flying them when I was stationed there.
Search John Boyd and his E-M Theory.
His findings there lead to the development of the F-16 and F-15 that both had a large wing area. The larger wing area decreased wing loading thus making the 15/16 much more maneuverable at low speeds. However they have more trade as a trade-off.