I wanted to point to uselessness of most of data that are circulating.

Yes…when we are trying to present information to enthusiasts, it doesn’t help when questionable data is used.

First graph is known from many books and it is on internet. I don’t know real source, but I can see that F-4 can sustain 4.5 g best subsonic and 5.5 at supersonic speeds. Totally wrong.

I agree, the info is confusing…depending on what F-4 version is being shown, the sustained values are going to depend on the altitude…and I don’t see altitude on this chart.

Fourth is famous USAF official training diagram. Data, where F-4 has greater SEP above M 1.5 at high altitude, are fundamentally wrong ?!?

What famous USAF diagram?

The second graphic did show the possible Gs of the slatted F-4E and the Fishbed L/N. It is of intrest, that both are close to 6 Gs at 3 km height and Mach 0,9 when that does drop to around 2 Gs at 11 km height.
The third graphic does show something similar about the unslatted F-4D and the Fishbed C as did the fouth graphic.

How did you determine what F-4 model was shown in these diagrams?

I think one major difference was that the FRG aircraft often flew in adverse weather conditions and low level, just the intended mission…the attrition rates of the F-104 in the early years was largely due to inexperienced pilots and maintenance personal, causing a high number of technical issues. For the West German Luftwaffe the F-104G was a leap in complexity, and the drastic increase in numbers meant many pilots didn’t get the training they needed.

Correct. The non-US air forces that went to the F-104 often did so without operating other supersonic aircraft. For most, they went from the F-84 or F-86 to the 104…a technological and experience leap that had a difficult learning curve. For many, this was their first supersonic fighter, first afterburning fighter, first all weather radar equipped fighter, etc. For the maintenance personnel and the pilots, it was a big bite to eat…and before the system was able to gain proficiency with the jet, many would crash.

The typical NATO fighter runway was 8000 ft long…that’s not a lot of runway when flying final at 175+KIAS and in marginal visibility.

…I would guess that many pilots didn’t dare to really push the F-104 to its limits, too afraid of becoming another “attrition loss”).

I would agree to that. In our FWS, the first air to air sortie was flown in the two seat model…we jokingly called it the “Oh ye of little faith” sortie!! In this profile, we would show the FWS student (often a pilot with many hours in the F-104) how to fly the airplane to its max and minimum speed…in the TF, that meant about 750KIAS in a shallow dive and on the slow side, zero airspeed in a vertical climb. The whole point was to dispel any fears that the pilots may have about high or slow speeds and how to fly at zero speed.

Some benefited from this, some did not.

OK…I appreciate the difficulty in dealing with a different language…so let’s clean this up a little!

When you fly an aircraft into a stalling condition and not enough height is left to recover in time.

Stalling and coffin corner are different subjects. The coffin corner part of the flight envelope is seldom reached by most aircraft due to the extreme altitudes and slow speeds inherent in the term…most pilots have no requirement to fly into that part of the envelope…it isn’t tactically smart.

As an aircraft approaches its coffin corner, the margin between stall speed and critical Mach number becomes smaller and smaller. Small changes could put one wing or the other above or below the limits. For instance, a turn causes the inner wing to have a lower airspeed, and the outer wing, a higher airspeed. The aircraft could exceed both limits at once. Or, turbulence could cause the airspeed to change suddenly, to beyond the limits.”

Correct.

Also a problem in fighter AC with T-tail

No…tail placement is not relevant to coffin corner..

.. .Stalling the F-104 Starfighter caused a sudden uncontrollable pitchup momentum.

No…the F-104 wasn’t stalled in a pitch up…it had reached too high of an AOA. Pitch up is caused by high AOA induced downwash over the horizontal stabilizer.

Therefore even preproduction models type YF-104A(17 build) received a strong kicker called APC(auto pitch control) which fired at critical limit and pushed the nose down.

The kicker actually pushed the stick forward…and that usually resulted in a pitch down.

At low level flights the APC could malfunction and fire unintentionally. It happened and was always a killing item.

No…it was not a “killing item”. We had a lever on the back side of the control stick called the “paddle switch”…depressing it disengaged the kicker. Pilots were trained to immediately use the paddle switch to cut out the kicker if needed. The kicker activated based on AOA OR at a fast rate of AOA increase. Most inadvertant kickers were the result of the pilot “snatching” the stick back and thereby getting a rate kicker (not a AOA kicker). Often, this happened in the pull out from a low angle strafe pass. Once a pilot experienced this, he seldom made that mistake again. Another place where kickers were common was in the traffic pattern “break” (the “pitch out”)…if the pilot got too aggressive he could induce a rate kicker…it was noticeable from the ground…the aircraft porpoised a bit until the pilot got the jet back under control.

Boundary layer control duct broke on one side, causing sudden unsymmetric lift conditions, hence high roll rates. No chance to recover.

Maybe…but this isn’t relevant to coffin corner.

No but my explaination was incomplete, he (my instructor) explained to me that the SH-23 ballistics were too poor in comparison to that of the DEFA 30mm so that correction was impossible to achieve vs a maneuvring target.

So this to my understanding explains why Mig-21 pilots rarely scored a gun kill.

Air to air gunnery is the subject that I taught as a FWS instructor…it’s a complicated subject and not easy to generalize about.

While the Mirage III gun system was inherently better than the GSh-23 (better gunsight, better muzzle velocity, larger round and mounted in an aircraft that had better visibility over the nose), the real difference was in the quality of the respective pilots…the Israeli pilots as a rule were (and are) better trained and better motivated.

…every aircraft have a coffin corner

A note of explanation here…

Coffin corner is an aerodynamic term that applies to all aircraft and has nothing to do with fighter tactics. It is simply the point on the flight envelope where the stall speed intersects the max allowable speed. This point is the max altitude of the aircraft and assumes a relatively light weight condition.

Alfakilo, i have a question for you; did your reversals occurs ONLY on the horizontal plan or did they involve some degree of vertical separation as well? Cheers.

Horizontal…the only vertical maneuver was at the end after the F-5’s energy had been reduced to the point where it would not be able to follow the F-104 up.