Does anyone get Climb Rate data of MiG-23 and F-16 at all altitude?
Someone told me Climb rate of MiG-23 can whelm F-16 at high altitude and supersonic speed.

The MiG-23ML has superior high altitude supersonic performance when we talk about 1G. As soon as turning is involved, the MiG looses big. The performance advantages of the MiG are hard to use for advantage in a 1980ies combat arena.

Low and medium level the F-16A was basically superior in all aspects. Add to that the fact that the MiG-driver has a hard time handling the workload in real combat, the MiG-23 is worst choice.

1G performance is often overrated.

+1. The F-100 was actually about 4,000lbs heavier empty than early F-8A Crusaders. However, later air-ground capable F-8E/Hs were heavier so by the mid-1960s the gap was reduced to 1,500-2,500lbs.

Despite the weight disadvantage and older design, the F-100’s performance really seems quite good. Climb rates at all altitudes were essentially identical to the F-8A Crusader, which had the same engine. The F-100C was also up to 20kts faster under 20,000ft, and only 40-80kts slower between 20,000ft & 40,000ft. Finally, the F-100’s range was unmatched by any single-seat fighter until probably the F-16, thanks to large internal fuel plus external tanks. Not bad for an aircraft entering service 1.5 years ahead of the “last gunfighter!” 😎

All this makes me wonder whether the Hun’s “Lead Sled” moniker was actually deserved. :confused: Imagine if the F-100 had been uprated with the same J57-P20 engine as on the F-8D (+2,000lbs AB thrust). This engine was available just a few months after the end of the F-100 production run and on the F-8D delivered huge performance improvements vs. early F-8As (+M0.3 top speed, +50% climb rate at sea level, despite a 2,000lb weight gain! :D). Sure, the F-100 would still have been slightly behind the F-8 in A2A performance, but probably good enough against MIGs, and its multirole capability would have been attractive.

A J57-P20 powered F-100D (plus ideally a small radar). Now that might have turned out to be useful in Vietnam… 😉

The F100 was first generation supersonic and behaved like it. It was solid when it came to 1g performance figures: range, speed, climb rates were pretty good, a good combination of engine and airframe. North American had to trade other features though.

The F100 was no dogfighter: it had all undesirable features of early swept wing aircraft, including wing rock, nose slide and lack of lateral stability at high angle of attack. Stall characteristics were undesirable. Still, it lacked the performance of a Starfighter.
For the air-to-air job the F100 was quickly outdated: not able to turn, pretty large and still slower than most aircraft.

We would then immediately pull into the vertical and climb at a 90 degree angle until the airspeed went to zero. As the jet ran out of speed, the instructor made sure the student didn’t make any mistakes with the flight controls…the jet would fall off into a nose low attitude where we would recover.

Is it correct that you could put a Starfighter into an irrecoverable flat spin?
If yes, I think hitting the rudder in such “zero airspeed” situation could easily end hanging on the parachute.

The F-104 did have limitations, but I think it truly was the best multi-role aircraft around, aside from the Phantom, until the F-16 came along.

The F-104A was as multi-role as the original YF-16. Not at all.
An aircraft always offers options, and depending on particulars of its design these vary. Generally, you can make a bomber out of a fighter, but you’ll never get a fighter out of a bomber. A fighter usually has reserves in thrust and lift (that is something the Lightning lacked).

Lockheed desperately tried to market their F-104, which they considered rightfully as a good product. In comparison to other century fighters at the end of the 1950ies (F-106, F-105, F-101, the F-102 was out of production by then) the F-104 was also very affordable (the lightest aircraft with 4t margin). Lockheed tried to make it a fighter, an interceptor (which at that time meant firing a Genie nuclear air-to-air missile) or a bomber.
In the end the bomber sold in numbers, rightfully considering the competition (which included the Mirage III and the Lightning).

Perhaps the F-104G was multi-role, but the pilots certainly were not.

The Lightning, indeed a beautiful and outstanding aircraft, had one major disadvantage:

You were fuel critical, the time you got airborne………

The problem with the Lightning was its lack of flexibility. It was designed as point interceptor against supersonic targets, performed the job very good (better than a Starfighter could do due to better climb performance).

The mission required climb, acceleration (in a mixed profile) and a short run on the target. Fire missiles and return. Mission accomplished. English Electric build exactly to specs. Drop tanks were apparently never an issue, also no weight allowance for that.

Of course, the Lightning had a few gremlins but nothing compared to the Starfigher. As for a flawed design, well apparantly, it was a better aircraft to fly and had better performance than the F-104, not to mention it had better ACM abilities, so nothing wrong with the design in that department.

The Lightning performed slightly better when it came to altitude and high altitude turning. The price to pay was flexibility. It could never be transformed into anything else than point defense interceptor. Its heavy weight compared badly to its small endurance and weapons load. A Lightning weights approximately the same as the Phantom (both around 14t empty).
Since the early 60ies air combat took place more in low and medium altitudes, so the Lightning advantages were not so important (at least in Germany).

When comparing performance, the comparison of the later re-engined F-104A (with newer J79 models) is better suited as the F-104G hauled quite some avionics with it.

The Lightning was a great design from a technical standpoint, but as combat aircraft I would place it significantly below the F-104.

Given the choice of the two, I’d have to go for the F-4, every time. Even a nutter wouldn’t go for something that is nic-named; “The Widowmaker!” Even the USAF didn’t want it, hence why the Luftwaffe got ripped-off in purchasing them, poor sods!

Sorry but, it was just a heap of white elephant dung! Read what Commander Ade Orchard RN thought of it on the Harrier thread.

The F-104G was an efficient striker, a very good relation between bang and buck.
The Soviet Air Defence in Eastern Europe had big issues defending against the Starfighter until the MiG-23M was introduced in numbers (from 1975 on). So, for about 10 years the Starfighter was effective in its role.

It was also very cost effective. The attrition rate was a problem, and partly can be blamed to the airframe itself (but also to the trained mission and the technology itself).