BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2018, 00:19

Username Protected wrote:

You should have Ed. When flown clean the F-4 approaches the performance of a '104.

It's news to me that the Phantom "approached" the performance of a 104. The Phantom owned the time to climb to 40K and the time to reach 40K at Mach 2.2 after the Starfighter and I guaran damned good and tee you it could out hustle a 104 with four AIM 9s and two Aim 7s (not to mention you couldn't even find a place on the 104 to bolt all that stuff let alone drag a full 600 gal centerline tank off the carrier deck).

Performance specs for cleaned up, stripped out, civilianized warbirds are a little disingenuous in that this condition was never encountered in military life but, based on the above, I'd be very surprised if a buffed out, no radar in the nose, well tuned Phantom couldn't run away from a similarly configured Starfighter.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2018, 07:32

Well Steve, I didn't want to be a blowhard about the Phantom. Having had a ride or two, just wanted to point out to the writer a Phantom ride would have been just as grand as a ride in the Starfighter.

.[/quote]

And I took your quote exactly as such. I do wish I would have flown the F4 when I had the chance. :doh:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2018, 17:01

Username Protected wrote:

Well Steve, I didn't want to be a blowhard about the Phantom. Having had a ride or two, just wanted to point out to the writer a Phantom ride would have been just as grand as a ride in the Starfighter.

.

And I took your quote exactly as such. I do wish I would have flown the F4 when I had the chance. :doh:

[/quote]

We good! :rock:

Just didn't want any casual readers to get the wrong impression.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2018, 17:47

I got the pawnee out of the barn the other day to clean it up for the season. I didn't record the time to climb to 500ft but I did note that with a tailwind it hit 90kts groundspeed. So take that, you former F-4 drivers.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jun 2018, 22:11

Username Protected wrote:

I got the pawnee out of the barn the other day to clean it up for the season. I didn't record the time to climb to 500ft but I did note that with a tailwind it hit 90kts groundspeed. So take that, you former F-4 drivers.

I did some glider work in. Marana, AZ last couple winters and they have a couple Pawnees as tow planes. Cool old workhorses! :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jun 2018, 16:09

Username Protected wrote:

I got the pawnee out of the barn the other day to clean it up for the season. I didn't record the time to climb to 500ft but I did note that with a tailwind it hit 90kts groundspeed. So take that, you former F-4 drivers.

It's hard to grasp how what once seemed like the zenith of aircraft performance and coolness can become ho hum stuff in a few short years. There's always something newer, faster and better coming down the pike. Best to just enjoy what we have and tip our hats to the guys flying the newer newer stuff. They'll be feeling old soon enough.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2018, 00:12

Username Protected wrote:

The shots of the landing gear really make it plain just how much F104 DNA is in an MU2.

Mitsubishi built F104J in the early 1960s during the time the MU2 was designed. No parts are interchangeable that I know of, but you sure can see the design influence in a few places.

I guess that means the MU2 design is partly Lockheed.

Mike C.

Our family was in Japan during the F-104 build from 1960-1962. My Dad was an aircraft tooling specialist with Lockheed and he reported to Kawasaki Aircraft at the Gifu Air Base. I was in the 6th/7th grade at the time and it was heaven to me.

It was a rockin' good time.

Dan

Stallion 51 just not enough?