Jump to content

Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Name

Front view of a F-4 Phantom II.
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).

The article states that it was known as "simply "F-4 Phantom" after 1990." Is this an official name change, or does it state an arbitrary date where the popular name changed?

Nobody today remembers the FH Phantom, so the "II" is probably unnecessary - Mmartins

Nonetheless, there was never an official name change AFAIK. Emt147 21:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, no official name change. The original McDonnell Phantom was a Navy aircraft produced by the same company, so making the distinction is still valid. Guapovia 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Some nicknames used in the German Luftwaffe are "Eisensau" (iron sow), "Fliegender Ziegelstein" (flying brick) and "Luftverteidigungsdiesel" (air defence diesel), all referring to both its durability and (lack of) maneuverability. They are slowly being phased out of service as of 2005 to be gradually replaced with the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Rewrite

IMHO this article needs expanding and formatting help. Unless someone has major objections or other ideas, I'll do it this weekend. First goal is reformat to fit WP:Air guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content, then it will be easier to expand without having to rewrite entire paragraphs.

And "double ugly" is not a B-52 reference. It describes either the dihedral wings with anhedral tail or the crew. Or both. :) - Emt147 Burninate! 05:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There, 'tis done. The article still needs expansion, particularly the details of Vietnam and Gulf War activities. - Emt147 Burninate! 09:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice work, Emt! I like it! Keep it up! Guapovia 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Split up/expansion?

Two issues:

  1. The article is getting huge. Should we split off the variants into a separate article?
  2. The Phantom is very well documented so the info can keep on coming forever. I don't think this article needs to be the definitive Phantom reference but more operational history and cool tidbits would be nice. - Emt147 Burninate! 08:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of the F-4 by Israel

The article states that the F-4's use by Israel was discontinued in May 12, 2006. However, it is known that the Kurnas 2000 (introduced 1989), which uses an F-4 airframe, is currently in use [1]. This information should be included, as it doesn't seem quite as usage of the F-4 has been completely discontinued. - MSTCrow 10:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RF-4E and RF-4EJ

The point of recognizing RF-4E and RF-4EJ simply is the existence of the M61 (under a nose). See this picture. Left and center are RF-4E and right is RF-4EJ.

--add signature--Open-box 11:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was wrong. --BillCJ 16:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
RF-4EJs do not have cameras in nose. They carry reconnaissance pods (,and sometimes ELINT pods) with dog fight capabilities remained. I310342 06:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Operation Bolo

Operation Bolo. If you guys want to read an article about a great F-4 victory over Vietnam take a look at Operation Bolo Tu-49 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lead-in section

The content from the Overview section got moved to the Lead in making that very long, at to me. WP:LEAD says the lead should be concise and no longer than 3-4 paragraphs. What do you think? -Fnlayson 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead section was developed specifically in response to comments from the FAC review. It is a long article and so it needs a more extensive summary section. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Editting Conflict

I attempted to change a link category heading from "Comparable Aircraft" to "Contemporary Aircraft" because the aircraft cited were single-engine single-seaters and the F-4 was neither. In doing so I was unaware someone else was editting at the same moment and my changes deleted the section. I'm not certain how to restore, but the links were to the F-8 Crusader and the Mig-19 and Mig-21. My apologies. Buckboard 12:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Two things:
  1. Your edits broke the template output. The "similar aircraft" line is a parameter fed into the template. When you changed its name, you made a new parameter the template did not recognize and thus that whole section got lost. The output is coded into the template.
  2. These are comparable aicraft because they were Phantom contemporaries with similar roles (air superiority) and performance (and besides, MiG-19 had two engines). That's the the whole idea of the "comparable aircraft" sub-section. Phantom contemporaries include such sky burners as the Cessna O-2 -- does that belong in the list then? - Emt147 Burninate! 16:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually IMHO there are short-comings to either term (and Comparable Contemporaries is a bit cumbersome, eh?). Fighter purists would argue the comparability point, esp. the idea that the Phantom was an air superiority fighter (local over the fleet, maybe, but otherwise, much more the fighter-bomber). Was unaware that the Mig-19 had two engines--I'm sure they caught hell from Mig-21 drivers over it, the way P-38 and all other twin-engine a/c caught it from the single-engine community. I reported this to restore the previous section. Buckboard 19:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Just read the project page guidelines and understand "comparable" as used here. Buckboard 20:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate.
MiG-19, MiG-21 and F-8 are of similar role, era, and capability as the Phantom (sort of, Phantom's radar was above and beyond anything else available at the time). What's your point? Regardlness, the line "Comparable aircraft" is written into the template (per the page content guidelines) so changing the template parameter in the F-4 document will only break the template output. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
None of those aircraft were built for a similar role as the F-4 and neither were they similar in capability. The MiG-19 was a development of the MiG-17, which was itself a development of the MiG-15 of the Korean War. The MiG-21 was an interceptor and as such was fast but with limited range and armament and was not the quick-turning dogfighting machine that the MiG-19 and its predecessors were. The F-8 was a pure dogfighter, primarily armed with guns although Sidewinders could also be carried. The F-4 was designed as neither a dogfighter, an interceptor or a fighter-bomber. It was a long-range fleet escort fighter designed to fight beyond visual range. It had a high thrust-to-weight ratio for the day but also, unfortunately, high wing loading. Together these qualities meant that an F-4 pilot that tried to engage a lighter dogfighter like a MiG-17 or MiG-19 in a primarily horizontal turning fight would find himself losing fairly quickly, but an experience pilot that knew how to use the F-4's superior thrust-to-weight ratio to fight in the vertical and to conserve the fighter's energy by never allowing himself to be both low and slow, would in the end probably prevail over the lighter opponent. The F-4 had range, speed, high energy and firepower due to its large missile load when compared to its common enemies. For a good analog, compare the F-4 to the P-47 Thunderbolt being faced by lighter, quicker-turning aircraft; a Thunderbolt pilot that tried to turn with his opponent would quickly be bailing out, but a P-47 pilot that used his aircraft's superior diving, climbing and rolling performance to his advantage would often win.
So no, none of the aircraft you mentioned are really comparable. Nothing of the day really was, because the Phantom set the mold for the air superiority fighter of the future. It influenced the design of the Soviet MiG-23 and (while wing loading was greatly reduced) the relatively large, high-thrust fighter has been the template ever since the F-4. --Molon Labe 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Service ceiling?

The service ceiling is listed as 60,000 feet. "Service ceiling" is defined as the altitude at which an aircraft can sustain no more than a 50 FPM climb. Earlier in the article, it is noted that the Phantom held a sustained altitude record of over 66,000 feet, and set a time-to-30,000-meters record. During the record climb, it gained its last 5,000 meters of altitude (about 15,000 feet) in about 2.5 minutes, which by my figuring is a ROC of about 6,000 FPM, well over the 50 FPM required for a service ceiling.

I realise the altitude records involved some zoom-climbing (don't know how much), but I think the 60,000-foot service ceiling number is at *minimum* 6,000 feet or so on the low side. Is there any more data out there to further define the true service ceiling of the Phantom? Where did the 60,000-foot number come from in the first place?--chris.lawson 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Per definition of service ceiling, it is 100 fpm at max continuous power, which I presume means non-afterburning power. My reference is listed in the specs (Green's "Great Book of Fighters"). I have seen 70,000 (extremely dubious) and 62,250 (Joe Baugher) as well. If you have a quality source, you are welcome to update the specs so long as you cite your references. A maximum sustained altitude is not the same as a service ceiling. Climb rate is extremely non-linear and may well utilize some zoom climbing. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Erm, you're right about the 100 FPM. Woops. :) I hadn't considered afterburning as a factor there, which probably accounts for the difference. I know max sustained altitude and service ceiling aren't the same thing, but the fact that there were so *many* altitudes so far above the quoted service ceiling is what caught my attention.--chris.lawson 04:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
All the 100,000 ft altitudes are zoom climbs with the engines off. The general technique is described in the text under Project High Jump. The advantage of the SR-71 was that it could cruise at the superhigh altitudes -- Soviets and Americans had to employ zoom climb tactics to try and intercept it. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually an early F4 achieved a sustained altitude of nearly 100,000 feet in the early record-setting attempts. I have a book that documents those records the Phantom set soon after it was introduced, but unfortunately it's in storage at the moment. The service ceiling, of course, was nothing like 100,000 feet; I believe the earlier mentioned figure of around 60,000 feet is approximately correct. --Molon Labe 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

General Note on F-4 and other fighter performance

I hope people here realize that the performance statistics cited for fighter planes typically assume clean configuration (that is, unencumbered by bombs or even a full missile load) and a relatively pristine aircraft (ie new condition). Take a Phantom that has seen a combat tour, has gotten dents, some minor battle damage, is carrying things on the hardpoints, and you won't get 1,600 mph out of it. You'd be lucky to get 1,000. Plus, the fighter's top speed and service ceilings are almost irrelevant to combat duty anyway, as most dogfighting takes place at middle to lower altitudes and speeds that are right around or below Mach 1 (and in planes with T-W ratios lower than unity, the dogfighting pilots end up at lower altitudes as they bleed off energy trying to getin each other's six o'clock). This is especially true when your only truly effective weapon is an early rear-aspect Sidewinder.

How would you suggest this aspect of the F-4's (or any plane's) performance be discussed?

06:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)raryel

Bent Tail of the F-4...

One subject that has not been covered is the purpose behind the downward-bent horiziontal tail section. Hopefully the explanation will be included soon by a knowlegeable enthusiast.

To quote the article, The all-moving tailplane was given 23° of anhedral to improve control at high angles of attack and clear the engine exhaust. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the point about control at high angles of attack sounds correct, but the bit about clearing the engine exhaust can't be right. The tail surfaces are bent downward, toward the exhaust. The tailplanes clear the exhaust because they are mounted on what is essentially a tail boom above the exhaust nozzles, just as in the Phantom's predecessor, the McDonnell F3H Demon. --Molon Labe 04:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam War Aces

"During the Vietnam War, the USAF and the USN each, had one pilot and RIO become ace's by shooting down 5 or more enemy aircraft in air to air combat."

WRONG!

First, the USAF had one pilot and two backseaters become aces. Second, Air Force backseaters are called WSOs (pronounced "whizzo") which stands for Weapons Systems Officer, and not RIOs. And third, the plural of ace is "aces", not "ace's"!

Lyle F. Padilla ([email protected]), Former F-4E WSO. 209.158.189.60 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I reiterate the above; the two Air Force WSOs are Charles B. "Chuck" DeBellevue and Jeffrey S. "Fang" Feinstein (who was one of my instructors at Homestead AFB in the late 1970s).

Lyle F. Padilla 209.158.189.87 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I have read of the Phantom's history in books, articles and a Discovery channel program on Top Gun, a couple of the most spectacular kills by the Phantom in Vietnam were not made by aces at all. If I recall correctly, Jerry Boulliet was in the charter class of Top Gun. After the 1970 stand-down, he ran into 3 MiG-17 jets, and, using the Egg Manuever taught at Top Gun, shot down two MiGs in quick succession. On his third loop around, the third MiG pilot ejected rather than risk being killed. Of course, one consequence of this dogfight was that Top Gun really proved its worth.

By contrast, Duke Cunningham, a Top Gun grad and later an instructor, did not engage "Colonel Toon" optimally (ie not using the vertical effectively) at the beginning of the dogfight. When he did climb, the MiG pilot surprised him by climbing as well, something a Phantom pilot would not expect a MiG-17 driver to do. They were canopy to canopy at one point. As they engaged in rolling scissors, Cunningham realized that the MiG-17 pilot had, at one point, lost sight of him, and he slowed up, allowing the MiG to slide ahead of him. His Sidewinder was just barely inside its acquisition envelope and shot down the MiG. I have in storage a diagram of the dogfight...some dogfight scenes in the 1986 movie were no doubt adapted from this...

By the way, why are edits rejected automatically? I type additional content, save it to the page, and when I come back it is not retained. user 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Raryel

This is because they are removed. Most of these edits pertain more to the pilot than the plane. So I suggest you put them in the pilot's page, as they are more significant to that page.--LWF 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I agree with LWF. This is a general article that is already quite long without stuffing it with anecdotes and trivia. Second, don't compromise your credibility by citing the Discovery Channel or the History Channel as a source -- both have a long and rich tradition of feeding incorrect information. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks for the reply.

First, the material on Cunningham's dogfight victory isn't trivia - it's actually a very important event in the history of the F-4 as a fighter, and of course was part of what led to Cunningham's ace status. Second, the material I wrote was designed in fit in context with the history of Cunningham's day - and it actually fits better here than it does on the biography page. Third, I didn't rely primarily on the History channel or Discovery to describe the event - Cunningham himself described it many times.

Fourth, the description of Top Gun tactics taught to F-4 pilots should be familiar to anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject, as presumably you are because you edited this page. The use of the vertical dimension is important to any pilot flying an aircraft with superior t-w ratio but inferior turning ability. For example, an F-104 can eat a MiG-19 for breakfast by climbing, looping and diving. Discovery had a program on Top Gun and they actually got that part dead right - so if you had dismissed that particular show as fluff, you'd be wrong.

I'm relatively new to the wiki thing, but I would guess that removing material without telling authors why (or posting it on a change board) is rude. I happen to think that your removing my material from the article was not appropriate purely on the content and context, but that's a separate issue. I certainly would not edit an article and carve sections out of it without discussing it first (though I have made grammatical and sentence structure edits and corrected a spelling mistake or two). Do you think we could show each other that courtesy? 68.165.47.187 06:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)raryel

Sorry guys but it seems this article on Phantoms is incorrect as my info tells me that the best Vietnam Phantom Ace shot down 6 aircraft. Stating 20 kills or so is really making yourself a fool. In Vietnam the fliers didn't have enough time to accumulate kills since they usually stayed for a max a year on tour. This seems to be blatant bullshitting on some US patriots side. Ilmar from Helsinki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.56.50 (talk • contribs)

Question about non-US service section

I notice that the Collings Foundation's aircraft is listed in the "Non-US Service" section. Does this imply that "US Service" means only US Military? If so, does this mean that other N-registered F-4s should be mentioned in this section, or should there be a separate section for civilian-registered aircraft? Akradecki 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like that mean non-US miltary service with the preceding sections US Navy, USMC, & USAF. -Fnlayson 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a civilian or non-military section for Collings would be better. It just looks out of place near Australia and Egypt. -Fnlayson 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll see what I can put together, then. I was specifically thinking of the F-4s that were civilian N-registered and used by AVTEL Services and Flight Systems, one of which was painted in completely civvie colors, too. Akradecki 05:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I moved the Collings Foundation info to a new 'Civilian usage' section. That seems like a better fit to me. If anyone has a better idea, change it. -Fnlayson 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Looks good. I've got a pic of the CF plane, plus other N-registered F-4s, and will try to get that info up when I get home this afternoon. Akradecki 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Wouldn't the CF plane photo be better positioned next to the mention of aces Steve Ritchie and Chuck DeBellevue? The CF plane markings are a reproduction of the plane that these aces flew during Vietnam, including the 5 red stars denoting aerial victories. Jacobst 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandia's F-4

(copied from my Talk page)

I agree with what you said in your edit summary about it not being a civilian usage. In fact, it wasn't flown at all, so that makes it harder to claim as "civilian" (seems like the minimum standard for that would be N-registry). Sandia used a gutted airframe mounted to a rocket sled on rails for the test, so it really should be moved elsewhere in the article...suggestions as to where? As for the fact tag, there's a video of the test (and it's quite impressive) on the Sandia website. Will add a ref for this. Akradecki 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I put this on the main F-4 Talk page so that other editors could comment too. I can't think of a particularly good place in the article for it, and frankly, if all they used was a gutted airframe, does that really count as being an F-4 any more?--chris.lawson 12:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Phantoms in non-US service images-RAAF F-4Es

I have some scans of original MDD publicity photos of RAAF 'Peace Reef' Phantoms if you care to use them. Just let me know and I can decrease the size for you.

Cheers,

Adam.

[[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [5]Adam1983 09:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[citation needed]

After editing and footnoting the F-86 article I worked on the T-34 article (another FA) I've added some {{Fact}} at the end of paragraphs (to limit the amount of reader disruption). These paragraphs make statements without supporting inline citation. Currently articles are being upgraded to a more comprehensive standard than before. If you need help with the citation please let me know and I will bail in and help with them. Tirronan 15:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a 2nd opinion on this link, Chuck Yeager is talking about the F-4 stability or more precisely the lack thereof and its tendency to spin. It might be a nice referrence [[6]] Tirronan 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Widely believed but incorrect

A QI-style bellringer that just got cited at me...

"The F-4's biggest weakness, as it was initially designed, was its lack of an internal cannon."

Sorry, but that just is not so. Dig into the actual statistics - Marshal Michel III's book "Clashes" makes an excellent starting point - and you find the curious fact that in 1972, USAF Phantoms - either gun-armed F-4Es or F-4Ds with the option of a podded Vulcan cannon - shot down 48 NVAF MiGs for 24 air-to-air losses.

Meanwhile USN F-4Js that not only had no internal gun, but no gun pods either (sometimes used for strafing ground targets, not carried for air-to-air work, no MiG kills claimed) shot down 24 MiGs for only four losses to enemy aircraft.


It's a complicated story and Michel tells it best; suffice it to say that not only did the F-4 not need an internal cannon to beat the enemy, it was three times as successful gunless as gunned. There's more to the tale than that, but the "gunless Phantom" was made scapegoat for a lot of other problems despite its demonstrated success.

Jrwlynch 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Navy was working its side of the Sparrow program difficulties much harder than the Air Force was and the results were showing. Bad ammo can lead to bad results just ask the British Grand Fleet at Jutland. Tirronan 23:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the SUU pods did not provide a sufficiently rigid mount for accurate air-to-air gunnery. Second, the guns vs. missiles statistics do not tell the whole story. Missiles are easier to aim and I suspect that given the choice between getting a Sidewinder lock and figuring out deflection, most pilots would use the missiles first. The exact same phenomenon was seen with the "last gunfighter" F-8. In contrast, the F-105 rarely carried AAMs and scored most of its kills with cannon. Kill ratios are also deceiving, as Navy flew predominantly fighter escort missions while USAF engaged in a lot of air-to-ground combat which means suboptimal configurations for air-air engagements due to bombs, fuel, etc. Regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, every modern fighter since the Phantom was designed with an internal cannon. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Its worse than that, the SUU pod equipped F-4 didn't have a lead computing gun sight so you get an vibrating unstable gunmount with an inaccurate sight. Tirronan 00:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That the Navy F-4J performed so much better in 1972 than USAF Phantoms is not a "curious" fact at all. The Air Force did not employ an agressor school like The Navy's Top Gun program. As a result, USAF pilots entered Operation Linebacker less prepared than their Navy counterparts in spite of their gun-armed Phantoms. The only thing that the kills of 1972 proves is that superior training wins over superior equipment every time.

In spite of the Navy's success with their gunless Phantoms, the lack of a gun still has to be called the Phantom's biggest deficiency on the grounds that pilots seem to have complained more about that deficiency than any other. The famous Col. Robin Olds was quoted in Paul Gillcrist's book about the F-14 as saying "I could have been an ace two times over if I had a gun!" All too often, NVAF MiGs were able to close within a missile's minimum range where the F-4, without a gun, was virtually defenseless.

While it may be better to be well-trained than well-equipped, it would be ideal to be both. I'm sure that even most Navy pilots in 1972 would agree that, even though they could make do with their training, having an internal gun would still have made life easier. This view seems to be shared by the great ace, Randy Cunningham himself. One book, "Cockpits of the Cold War" by Donald Nijboer, has Cunningham stating the following about the F-4: 

    The one thing the Navy F-4 didn't have was a gun...
    Twice I ended up zooming and coming up to a MiG that
    didn't even know I was there, but I couldn't shoot 
    him because I was too close for a missile shot.

A bit of kindness

Shall we try and show a bit of kindness to editors here? If they are new lets be a bit kinder to them? Whatever you might think the F-105 saw heavy use in the campaign Rolling Thunder (I think that is correct my books are at the house right now) and I think that is what Taffy was trying to say. I get irritated too but this article isn't personal property and we need not act like it is. A bit of encouragement and some sources the guy might use can get us further than snapping at them with personal comments. Tirronan 15:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Taffy's not that new. He has been adding comments like this in other articles, namely the F-105 Thunderchief. There is a lengthy discussion with him on the talk page. If you haven't seen it yet, it's quite intersting (especially his source!). EMT was more civil than I would have been, which I why I didn't revert it when I first saw it. EMT is fully capable of defending himself (I've been on the receiving end of his retorts a few times too!), but I just wanted to give you a chance to read up on the history of the matter before he responded himself. I would agree with you that we should show kindness to everyone, but after finding out the AFD-nazis were exempt from that, I don't care anymore :) - BillCJ 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my limit on kindness is one per user per problem. I addressed this issue with Taffy several times now. He a) hasn't bothered to reply and b) continues to add the same inane inaccurate stuff from that horrid Dogfights TV show. I believe my kindness is all used up. No one argues that the Thud was used in Vietnam -- go and read Taffy's addition again, he claims it was used in air combat until the Phantom came along. This is what we call "wrong". And pardon me if I act protective of this article -- it is predominantly my rewrite from scratch and I don't want hours of hard work to be ruined by the uneducated and the illiterate (see B-36 for an example of what happens to an FA-quality article that is left unattended for a while). Sure, Taffy has as much right as anyone else to edit any Wikipedia article. And I have as much right as anyone else to revert him. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the statement "bore the brunt of air combat," is rather deceptive. It is true that the F-105 did not do well in air combat and many shoot downs resulted from this, but the statement Taffy inserted makes it seem as if the F-105 participated in large amounts of air-to-air combat; which is patently untrue. In fact the F-105 avoid air combat if at all possible. As a matter of fact, I saw a declassified brief on the F-105 given to its pilots, and its main point was "don't get in a dogfight," instead it stressed use of the F-105's speed advantage to escape from attacking MiGs.--LWF 01:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah that is ok then, I had one guy on the T-36 article I'd slaved over who didn't speak english all that well wanting to add {{Fact}}s all over the introduction and everwhere else. He then decided his grammer was superior to the natives when that didn't go he then started eliminating sections he didn't think were fit to include... in an FA article he couldn't have writen to that standard if I had done it for him... You are talking about the same history channel that had the Battle of Waterloo without a single Prussian on the field? Sorry about that I thought the guy was a 1st timer that mispoke himself.Tirronan 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Uhm, I know this is a typo, because no one has written the T-36 article yet. (It was a Beech design, but not built.) Did you perhaps mean T-38, or B-36? I'd genuinely like to look at the article, those edits sound like very "interesting" reading! I edit some aircraft pages frequented by non-English native speakers, and it might help. Oh, was he one of those who changes "aircraft" to "aircrafts"? - BillCJ 01:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

T-34 I put in about 40 in line citations and I am still working on a few thing. The thing made FA then ever troll in town decided it wasn't good enough. One hero dumped a ton of facts on it never to be seen again, (and wouldn't know a tank if I fed him to the tread) and on it went. Its all there a lot of it archived. Tirronan 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No one would willingly take an F-105 laden with an extra fuel tank in the bomb bay and ordinance on the wings into a dogfight. You could make an arguement that one wouldn't have a 105 in a dogfight if it could be avoided in the 1st place. That wasn't its mission. I think the only statement that could be made is that it held the brunt of the bomber role for the USAF in the rolling thunder campaign to my knowledge and they stopped using it when there were not that many left and converted over to F-4's for the strike fighter role. Tirronan 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
and I hate trolls... Tirronan 01:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole F-105 discussion is irrelevant -- this is an article about the F-4. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Taffy made it relevant when he inserted that statement on the F-105 into this article. We're discussing why the statement shouldn't be here. Yes, we don't need to flesh out the whole argument all over again, but how can we say why it shouldn't be here without discussing it a little? You're beginning to sound like me on an AFD discussion page :) - BillCJ 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah no worries EMT is working on his social skills.Tirronan 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Stored Phantoms picture

Phantom II in storage at AMARC.

I suggest to add this picture, but I ignore if these ladies were Naval, Air Force or what. Randroide 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox should be corrected

My insertion of turkish air force in the infobox was reverted although the turkish air force has much more Phantoms in use then the british royal air force. Therefore the infobox should contain rather the turkish then the british airforce which in fact uses no more Phantoms at all according to this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft 

{{Infobox aircraft
  |name=F-4 Phantom II
  |type=[[Fighter-bomber]]
  |manufacturer=[[McDonnell Douglas]]<br/>([[née]] [[McDonnell Aircraft]])
  |image=F-4 Phantom II in flying.jpg
  |caption=USAF F-4E from 347th Tactical Fighter Wing dropping 500-pound [[Mark 82 bomb]]s.
  |designer=[[David S. Lewis, Jr.]]
  |first flight=[[27 May]] [[1958]]
  |introduction=[[30 December]] [[1960]]
  |produced=1958-1981
  |number built=5,195
  |status=1,100 active as drones, in service, and in foreign service as of 2001
  |unit cost=US$2.4 million when new (F-4E)<ref name="knaack">Knaack 1978</ref> 
  |primary user=[[United States Air Force]]
  |more users= [[United States Navy]] <br/>[[United States Marine Corps]] <br/>[[Royal Air Force]] 
  |variants with their own articles=
}}

--134.155.99.41 08:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The infobox lists the significant users of the aircraft during its career. Now that the aircraft is in decline and even though the Turkish Air Force operates a substantial number, that does not preclude the need to identify the UK-based Phantoms as an important historical contribution to the Phantom story. (BTW, if you wish to have more "clout" and be treated as a bona-fide researcher, it would be useful to have a user-id and not simply an IP address. IMHO, it is customary to deal with individuals who have set themselves up as editors who have a track record.) Bzuk 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
Better yet, how about I remove all foreign users and avoid this issue altogether. In terms of the order of significant foreign users, Turkey is way down the list (Israel would be first due to the most significant combat use after US, then RAF and Germany with the most radical modifications of the existing aircraft, then Japan and Turkey, etc.) And I second Bzuk's comment about registering. - Emt147 Burninate! 15:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have already registered me in the German Wiki but it seems not to be possible to log in whit my German Wiki account for any reasons. Back to topic, I would suggest to look which country has the most phantoms and write it in the infobox. It seems to be Israel, Turkey and Germany in this order, look here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_F-4#Einsatz_au.C3.9Ferhalb_der_USA , there you see: Israel = 274 F-4E und 12 RF-4E, total 286 followed by Turkey = 233 F-4E und 46 RF-4E, total 279, and than followed by Germany = 175 F-4F und 88 RF-4E, total 263. We should put them in in this descending order. Would that be ok for you? --134.155.99.41 21:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Air MoS by community consensus limits the number of additional users to to prevent infobox bloat. Since people cannot control their rampant nationalism, the issue of which nation makes it into the infobox will be contentious. Therefore the easiest way out is to favor no one. In addition, the significance of users goes beyond the numbers. Israel is by far the most significant in terms of combat use. RAF and Germany take precedence over Turkey in the most dramatic mods (after all, Turkish Terminator 2020s are just modernized Israeli Phantoms, not an indigenous domestic product). - Emt147 Burninate! 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuel efficiency

This was added to the main article:

A discussion of fuel performance would seem to significant to the understanding of overall efficiency of this machine. Gallons per hour? Gallons per mile? Gallons per pound per mile? Also very little discussion of reliability, safety, and overall workability of the aircraft except for $ per hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.210.121 (talk • contribs)

  • That's going to be a hard one to answer, sinc eit depends on how it is used. Dashes at high speed with afterburners will burn much more fuel than normal cruise type flying. Anybody have estimates in this area? -Fnlayson 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi to all

I talk here because i have some things about this article.

I tough, that F-4 is a neverending-tale aircraft, so why costrict the machine itself with the service with several airforces? I tough that there must been a voice for service and one for tecnical. Yes i know, this will not happen but i think it should. Also as tecnical side, there is not existent. A machine so complex should have a capter that describes it at best and detailled. And as combat employ it needs absolutely of a very long article, if not two (US and foreign costumers). Even without dismount this, another should be dedicated to this issue.

Another issue: i cannot understand why there is the standard to make just minimum width photos: do you are aware that the reader must enjoy the articles, so what is supposed to do so if the photos are 100 pixel? It's impossible even to look at details, if not to click on photos. But it's not a valid answer. An article should not be only a info box. It needs to be a bit more.

Another issue: the UK Phantoms are wrongly described. It's absolutely false that UK upgraded these machines at F-4K M levels, they on the contrary remained with the radar and the engines of original F-4J upgraded to a F-4S standard but without a 'combat slats'. This is what Denis J Caldvert writes in an article of a magazine, Aerei n.5/1991. I'll write these informations, sorry but this is a 'featured article' that needs a bit more attemption.--Stefanomencarelli 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as this fool is allowed to run loose on en.Wiki, despite having been repetedly banned from it.wiki, I refuse to work on the same pages he does. He shows no respect for anyone, and insists on dumping his poorly-written garbage into articles, and then crys out censorship when we try to clean it up! Worse, he shows no respect for the copyright laws, and only occasionally even cites sources. Why is he even allowed to remain here? I'm sorry, but he's turned Wikipedia into a joke. I can't even read half his posts on talk pages - and they are NEVER short! Someone with so little grasp of the language should recognize his own limitations, and stick to languages he can better understand. Unfortunately for us, his own language wiki has dumped him on us, and we're to scared of offending people to do the right thing. Have fun guys, I have better things to do with my time than to try to intrepret bad writing, and then be accused of censorship! - BillCJ 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There is sufficient concern about the new approach advocated above and even concerning the information recently added to the article so that it may be wise to remove the new material, place it in the talk page for now before a final determination. What do people think? FWIW Bzuk 17:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of the RF-4 by Spain

The article states that the RF-4's are still in use by Spain. The Spanish Air Force "EdA" actually uses the Reccelite Pod in its F/A-18 for tactical reconnaissance. The RF4Cs aren´t in use since 2002. I prefer not to edit the article due to my badly English.

In this article from Spanish Air Force official website claims that RF4Cs aren´t in use now:

http://www.ejercitodelaire.mde.es/WebEA/static/ServContenidos?id=06903172BDAEB4E8C12570D70046523A&plantilla=generica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.69.195 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

UK variant excess info

I've removed the paragraph below from the United Kingdom operator section.

The 15 aircraft were chosen from among the best stored at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, and were upgraded to a level almost equal to the F-4S. The main difference was the absence of combat slats, called a "source of drag" by the RAF and not requested. This also simplified the training of RAF crews, as slats were not fitted to other RAF aircraft. The first F-4J (UK) was delivered to Naval Air Station North Island on 2 August 1984, and from there RAF crews delivered the aircraft to the UK. The aircraft were totally overhauled and fitted with AWG-10B radar, smokeless engines and provision for Skyflash missiles. They entered service with No. 74 Squadron RAF, based at RAF Wattisham. The aircraft were well liked by crews and generally rated better than Spey F-4s. They were slower as climbers, due to the less powerful engines, but they were also 760 kg lighter and able, at altitude, to reach superior speeds (mach 2.3 compared to 2.1).Also radar was praised (engines are good and the radar is excellent in the words of a pilot). Also the FOD danger was less felt due to the ruggeness of J79s. Despite the age and the lack of combat slats these machines served well until being replaced in 1991.[1]

It really belongs in the F-4 Phantom II variants article or elsewhere. Also, the wording needs much work. -Fnlayson 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviousely you can call 'excell information'(yes, there are 'clever' judges in wiki) because there is not really much 'info' about Phantom service in wiki.en. But instead to make an improvement about it, you preferred to remove this. Such good idea! Greetings to you, Bzuk and some others. The page about F-4 variants it's really pathetic. You can do it better, instead to remove you can add something, but it's too difficult to do so i guess. Let's whip the others work, it's easier. Such a shame.--Stefanomencarelli 23:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why haven't you made any effort to do any copy editing on what you add? You dump massive amounts of text and leave to others to clean up and try to reword so it makes sense. That's really fair.. ;) -Fnlayson 03:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Humm, very interesting. Thanks EH101. -Fnlayson 21:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article; tweak suggestions

The section on "Flying the Phantom" seems a little thin. Here would be a thought to address that and other points that have been raised: either add another section at the same hierarchical level, or put in two subheads: "Admired Phantom Characteristics" and "Problems (mostly) fixed". As your "Flying the Phantom" section exists, it really has two paragraphs on one and two on the other. Besides smoke and the gun, some of the other variants were made due to perceived deficiencies. The latter could make a section. The positive pilot perceptions could use more content. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The Flying the section does not seem to fit in that well to me. But I think its length is alright. A separate Design (features) section would be a good addition. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • A couple paragraphs from the Overview section with the Flying section would make a good separate Design section. But, that'd take some reworking of the Overview section to fill in the holes left. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of the photos are out of context, the one in the Overview. I'll make a first attempt to fix.... follow-up if needed. LanceBarber (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC) added a few more refs and section adjustments. LanceBarber (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming

I usually am reluctant to take out information. I did take out the sentence about McDonnell chairman being fascinated with the occult. It has nothing to do with the name. It also had a "citation needed" tag since September. A source even states that the chairman wanted the name for Persian god of light, which is not occult related. Somebody else wanted the name "Satan". Of lesser need for discussion is that FA usually don't have citation needed tags. The solution is both to find citations and to evaluate if the sentence really needs to be there. Archtransit (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wild Weasel

There is very little text about this. I think it was an important mission of the plane. Anyone think there should be more text about this? The wild weasel concept lives on today even though the planes have changed. Archtransit (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

factual error in intro corrected

In 2001, over 1,000 F-4s were in service with 11 nations worldwide.

This is not true. Look at the chart. By 2001, some countries, like Australia, no longer operated the aircraft. I am fixing the intro statement error. Having an error in the intro is embarrassing! Archtransit (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II operators

A lot of good work ensuring the FA status guys!

Stefanomencarelli's comprehensive original text of the F-4 Phantom II operators article has had a thorough work-over but there are still several cite tags that need to be dealt with. Unfortunately he is serving a one-year block and so is unavailable to provide the relevant refs. Does anyone have reliable sources that will do the job?

Once these loose ends have been sorted out, the "Phantom in non-U.S. service" section of the F-4 page could be pared down to a basic summary of more-or-less equal size for each country, allowing "F-4 Phantom II operators" to become the "main article" rather than "further information". This would tidy the F-4 page slightly while at the same time reducing its weight a little. Any takers/comments? --Red Sunset (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a good idea to reduce (or remove) the text on operators on the main "F-4 Phantom II" page, because the "F-4 Phantom II operators" page (or list) has most, if not all, of the relevant information. Snowman (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect tag

The redirect message: '"F-4" redirects here. For other uses, see F4.' is no longer true. F-4 redirect to F4 now. So that's probably why the message was removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Snow's explanation of "No primary page" makes no sense to me, though it probably means something to him that I'm not aware of. I've redirected it back here. - BillCJ (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean that he thinks that USS F-4 is just as common as F-4 Phantom? I think that position would be extremely hard to prove! - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A primary page is a page which is the obvious title when there are alternatives: see WP:DAB#Primary topic. There is a dab page for F4 with lots of possible links for "F4" or "F-4", so I think that "F-4" should be linked to "F4" and not to "F-4 Phantom II". The chess link is popular and there is possibility for confusion with USS F-4, F4D Skytrain, F4F Wildcat, F4U Corsair. Snowman (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Larry Reithmaier

Does the F4 on this page link here? Did he contribute to designing the F-4 Phantom II? Snowman (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • F4 (no dash) is a disambiguation page. Don't know about the second part. I can't find where anything on the wiki pages about Rockwell Int. working on any F4x or F-4 fighters. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving the Related content section from the bottom: Why?

I've moved the related content section and renamed it "related aircraft content" for the following reasons.

[7] Exerpts:
User:O has commented "Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway"

I believe the comment is directed at this type of section [2] .

My response was that there should be discussion at the WikiProject level. If it is at the article level, this creates a difficult situation trying to address the criticism of the "related content (similar aircraft list)" section, which is common to WikiProject Aviation articles and the purported Manual of Style violation. Since this is more of a policy decision, it may be better discussed here or at some other larger forum, rather than having the same question come up in every article. Archtransit (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has cropped up a while back and the consesnus that was arrived at was that there were some concessions to the unique characteristics of the Aviation Project article. It made sense to put this section below rather than treating it as a "See also" section. Bye the bye, there really are no MOS standards etched in stone (at least I hope not?!) that are uniformally applied. Commonsense does rule as well. Bzuk (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC). (I'll take that last statement back if I am shown in error... {:¬∆)
MoS specifically states that there is no prescribed order for this material; only that if both "Notes" and "References" are included, these sections should appear next to each other. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, The Layout guide says on Standard appendices, that "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other." -Fnlayson (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed this dilemma with the assistant who helps the Director of featured article selection on following WikiProject guidelines and having a section that is not mentioned in the Manual of Style (possibly interpreted as a violation of MOS). The advice was to look at previous FA (they have that last section). The advice also was to see if we can meld the appendices so there is not a non-standard appendix.

To avoid a heated argument about FA's, I propose to do it on the F-4 Phantom II article (which is already an FA and where changing the appendix will not ruin the article to the point of removing it's FA star). Then you can comment on whether the meld is acceptable. If so, the meld could be a proposed new guideline for WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. Archtransit (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion should be kept there. See this diff [8] to see how a change to the appendix would look. Consider not reverting back and forth (no 3RR fights, please!) - this diff shows how it looks so you can comment. Archtransit (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As indicated earlier, this is not needed nor is it required. The admins that previously looked at the issues were able to see that the unique aspects of the aviation article allowed this variation. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Lead paras

One of the comments of the FARC review is that the lead is far to short - I have knocked up a draft here. Please comment. Nigel Ish (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The Overview used to be the bottom of the Lead, I believe. That's why the current Lead in on the short side now. Your lead looks good to me. Covers everything I can think of. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Revised lead now in article.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that it should have been merged, which links the edit history of the sandbox page to this page. This is needed for copyright legal reasons. The method is clear in the merge instructions. It looks like that you have added it with a copy and paste. Snowman (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It being discussed at the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Does the Overview section really need to be there? It is almost replicating what the Lead does. I think it'd be better to move some parts of the Overview to the Lead and the rest to elsewhere in the article. What do others think? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Is an overview what should be in an introduction? Snowman (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Caption

A caption states: "An F-4F on display described as World's largest distributor of MiG parts." Does this mean that the F-4 Phantom II in the photo delivered parts as cargo? What years does this apply too? Is it the largest supplier outside the USA? Is there another reference to support this? Who wrote the notice in the picture? Was it written by a parts firm? Snowman (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke. If we have to explain it, it's not going to be funny. The caption simply repeats what's on the sign in the text - we didn't write the sign, presumably F-4 users did. - BillCJ (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, but I'll think about a reword that's suitable. --Red Sunset 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems OK, even though the original one worked for me. --Red Sunset 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How about that one? --Red Sunset 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I know that MiGs are enemy aircraft, I see the joke - I had to search to check that MiGs are Russian aircraft, so can this be wikilinked to a suitable page? Which wars are you talking about? In the photo there is another poster slightly behind the quoted poster, perhaps that poster explains the details of the MiGs blown up or shot down, which is needed here too. Perhaps, the caption should include the phrase "enemy aircraft" somewhere and a MiG wikilink. Snowman (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are wikilinks to MiGs in the article, but I suppose one in the caption wouldn't hurt. No wars were mentioned. --Red Sunset 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Wl to MiGs now in caption, but shouldn't we be attending to the new cite tags rather than dissecting the joke? --Red Sunset 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
When fighter aircraft are shot down by other fighter aircraft and parts are "distributed" over the ground is is called a war. Do you mean that the F-4 Phantom II is a hypothetical "distributor" of aircraft parts? Snowman (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

With the information now available I have amended the caption. However, it is not clear if the F-4 Phantom II in the photo a record holder of MiG downings or if it refers to F-4 Phantom IIs in general? Snowman (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowman, the "Phantom nicknames" section, which includes the image, expands on the caption. --Red Sunset 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
ok, but that section needs citations. Currently, the one citation in the paragraph only gives the names of five nicknames and the "parts distributor" is not one of them". Snowman (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That the F-4 was in several wars, and that it's primary opponents were MiGs, is not disputable. That this led some to call it World's largest distributor of MiG parts falls into the "common knowledge" aspect of sourcing. If we can find a source, great, but I honestly don't think it reguires one. However, a lengthy explanation to help "some" readers understand what the phrase means, whether in the text or the caption, would require adequate sourcing. This may be a case where it's best to just let the pic stand alone - it's a pic of an F-4 with a sign - that needs no sourcing, it just is. If people don't get it, they can ask here. - BillCJ (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What does the stand alone photo indicate? The sign says that the F-4F was (or is) the "World's largest distributor of MiG parts". It is not clear that the aircraft behind the sign in the photo is a record holder or that it refers to F-4Fs in general. It does not clearly include other variants of the F-4 Phantom II as being "distributors of MiG parts". There are several interpretations of what is shown on the sign. Encyclopedias should be clear, and editors should not routinely assume that readers can ask, if they do not get it. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Snow, it's just a photo. You're clearly overthinking this - many people can do that, even me, so I'm not saying that to be overcritical. Clarity applies primarily to the text in the article. We didn't write the sign, it's in the pic, and we can't change it to be more clear. I think we've discussed this enough to prove that if someone just doesn't get a point, no amount of dicussion is going to help. It doesn't mean anyone is stupid, or that a large amount of readers won't understand it. This is not Simple English Wikipedia - we don't have to make everything understandable at a first grade level. So please, let's just move on, and let things be. Or, you can propose that the pic be removed for being "unclear", and we can all abide by the consensus. - BillCJ (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

F-4 list article creep

We currently have (at least) three separate articles devoted to listing F-4 operators and units:

  1. F-4 Phantom II operators - this page is an excellent salvage of Stefano's terrible attempt to make an article, and probably the best of the lot now. It is a mix of prose and lists of all non-US operators.
  2. List of units using the F-4 Phantom - This article has decent lists of USAF, USMC, and RAF units, and some prose on operators of otehr nations. This is very incomplete, and most of the non-US operator info is already on the F-4 Phantom II operators page.
  3. List of U.S. Navy F-4 Phantom II units - this was spun off the previous list without no discussion at all, and apparently not much thought either. Good arrangement of info though, and the best section on any operator on the 3 pages.

I'd like to suggest that we move all non-US lists/test sections to F-4 Phantom II operators. We can then merge List of U.S. Navy F-4 Phantom II units back to List of units using the F-4 Phantom, and rename this page something like U.S. F-4 Phantom units. This would eliminate the current duplication across 2 of the pages, and keep the US units on one page. I've not checked to see how much duplication is present between the main F-4 page and F-4 Phantom II operators as yet, but considering the original contributor . . . - BillCJ (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • So combine 2 & 3. Seems fine to me. After that wouldn't the "F-4 Phantom II operators" article need to be renamed to include "non-U.S." or something in there as well? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to list that. How about F-4 Phantom non-U.S. operators? - BillCJ (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • These suggestions seem good to me, but there was some discussion over what to call the F-4 Phantom II operators page, and at that time by consensus it was preferred not to use "non-U.S." in its title, but it might now make sense to rename it perhaps either F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators or F-4 Phantom II in non-U.S. service to distinguish it from the new merged #2&3 article, possibly named F-4 Phantom II in U.S. service. I'd also like to suggest that all relevant information in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force sections of "Operational history" could be incorporated into the "U.S. service" page leaving summarized sections on the main F-4 page; similarly, the "Phantom in non-U.S. air forces" section incorporated into the "non-U.S. service" page. These two new pages would become the "main articles" leaving a slimmer and tidier F-4 main page which has got to be a good thing! What d'ya think? --Red Sunset 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! I've got a non-Wiki project I'm busy with at the moment, so if someone else would like to do those changes, it's fine with me. (Note that I fully intended to do this myself when I proposed it, but circumstances beyond my control have intervened, and I've had to reprioritize my Wikipedia work for the time being. Just e-mail me if you want more explanation.) - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the "nuts & bolts" of "moving" a page; however, I'll wade in with anything else that I can. --Red Sunset 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Per discussions and FARC recommendations I'm making "operators" the main page and summarising the non-U.S. operators section country by country. Please dive in and change/correct where necessary. --Red Sunset 19:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that does need to be fixed with the operators article is the referencing. It may be worth keeping a copy of the operators section removed from the main article (which is referenced a little better) somewhere as a resource to help fill out the operators article (particularly because of the fuss about references in the main article.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The history of an article saves everything anyway. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My pruning could have been more severe, but I didn't want to go too far. Fortunately only a few cites were cut:-

Anyone who would like to take it further is welcome to do so. --Red Sunset 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, moved "F-4 Phantom II operators" to F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators. I plan to move and combine the other 2 articles into "F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators" this week. UPDATE: I moved "List of U.S. Navy F-4 Phantom II units" to F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators. I'm merging info from List of units using the F-4 Phantom to the U.S. operators article. The non-U.S. content in "List of units using the F-4 Phantom" appears to already be covered in "F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators". -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of excellent work done so far organising the pages and providing cites to reliable sources by Fnlayson and Nigel Ish. (I wonder just how many articles significantly cite Baugher and Goebel?!) --Red Sunset 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of air-to air kills

The number of air-to air kills scored by the Phantom appears to vary throughout the article.

In the overview we have 393 air-to-air victories (uncited)

  • In US Navy we have 40 in Vietnam (Grossnick?)
  • In US Air Force we have 107.5 in Vietnam (Vietnam War Almanac)

This gives 147.5 kills in US service in Vietnam

No figures are given for Iran -who has used them in air-to air combat

In the Israel section we have 116 (Baugher - and this is quoted on Baugher's isreal page - not the Index)

In the Phantom Culture section we have 277 US kills (unreferenced - although Boeing here refers to 280 MuG aircraft - but doesn't say who by) and 116 Israeli kills. (which adds up to 393 - as in the overview)

Very few of these figures seem to add wp - in particular there are 129.5 missing US air to air victories which appear to have been scored somewhere other than Vietnam.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I too drew a blank in finding a ref for the 277 figure. Unlikely I know, but it's possible that the Boeing site rounded the number up to 280 to promote the F-4's image a little more! Now, on to trawling for kill numbers that add up... --Red Sunset 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • According to the article: the 393 figure does not refer specifically to MiGs and so could mean aircraft of all types; while the USMC's 3 victories, USN 38 (USN's 40 includes 2 Ans), and USAF 107.5 (totalling 148.5) refers to MiGs only – presumably the remainder could have been other types; Sus, Tus, Ans, Mils etc. etc. (but that still doesn't reconcile the 277 MiGs figure in "Popular culture").
  • The Boeing site is a bit vague – the intro mentions 280 air-to-air victories (not MiGs specifically) in Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm, while "Gee Whiz!" says 280 MiGs but doesn't state where or who by. It's a bit of a coincidence that the same number quantifies two different circumstances – draw your own conclusions as to the accuracy or precision of either statement!
  • Baugher's 116 Israeli victories also doesn't mention MiGs.
  • The 277 MiGs may have been a misinterpretation of the original source (aircraft, kills, etc.).
It's a great pity that the editor who added the 393 and 277 figures didn't cite their refs. Still looking for reconciliation. --Red Sunset 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: It appears that the reason for the confusion is the use of the generic term "MiG" for enemy aircraft – from what I've found, 277 and 116 (393 total) are air-to-air victories including MiGs. Baugher doesn't mention MiGs in relation to these figures, so I've cited refs and adjusted the text. --Red Sunset 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Further update - (now Baugher isn't considered a WP:RS)
  • Vietnam:

The 107.5 USAF "MiG" kills and 40 USN kills seem to derive from reliable sources (giving 147.5) - ACIG [9] and [10] seems to state 159 total confirmed air-to air victories (including six J-6s (which other sources could count as MiGs) - all USAF and FOUR An-2s (all USN), together with a single Chinese aircraft [11].

Good work Nigel; I trawled through these sites and became cross-eyed in the process! However, probably because I wasn't seeing straight, I came up with 159 confirmed MiGs and a total air-to-air victories of 169 in Vietnam (plus 1 MiG & 1 A20 from this). I did manage to come up with a total of 272 confirmed MiGs in Vietnam, Israel and Iraq combined plus a few unconfirmed and damaged which is getting close to the popular culture's 277 MiG kills. Nevertheless, it's all still as clear as mud and we have significantly different numbers coming from apparently reputable sources, so where do we go from here? I wonder if there are any two reliable sources that agree, and in any case the truth probably lies somewhere else, so maybe the best course of action is to decide which source seems (or is most likely) to provide the most accurate information – adjust the numbers in the article to match this cited source – then attach an explanatory footnote/s, possibly citing the alternatives within the footnote/s. Any other suggestions? --Red Sunset 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The Thornborough book has an appendix listing all the South-east Asia kills with the aircraft number, crew names, mission callsign, date and weapon used plus the type of aircraft destroyed. USAF kills 109 (all MiGs), US Navy kills 40 (two shared, one with an F-105 and one with another F-4) aircraft destroyed where MiGs apart from two AN-2 biplanes. On page 202 Israel is given a total of 116 kills and on the same page is the statement 'the 280th and last reported MiG kill worldwide'. I can't quickly find any info on Iran numbers although it might be there. Hope this helps. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be tempted to reference Thorborough for the USAF, USN and Israeli victories, and possibly?? reference ACIG for Iranian victories (Tom Cooper, who is a major contributor to ACIG is probably the closest thing to a reliable source on Iranian combat claims - and has been published), but remove references to overall totals because of the general uncertaincy about some of the numbers and the differences between the critiera (for example Israel and Iran numbers are not official). Nigel Ish (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds sensible, but where individual numbers are referenced then couldn't overall totals including these be referenced also? --Red Sunset 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that other than the uS claims - we wouldn't be comparing like with like. The Iranian figures in particulr probably need to be taken with some caution.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Valid point, but since total claim numbers ought to be referenced, and as we can't reliably do so, are you advocating their removal from the article, or perhaps that they should be altered along with the associated text to give a more general meaning? --Red Sunset 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Return) OK, for simplicity we could replace the 393 with "numerous" in the Overview with ACIG cited, and remove the "as part of its 277 air-to-air victories in U.S. service and an additional 116 with Israel" text and cite Thornborough. That kills two Baughers and removes any contention at the same time. --Red Sunset 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Nimbus227 has sorted it – well done that man! --Red Sunset 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Baugher

I've left this open at FAR because I know a great deal of edits had been made to improve it. Are there going to be any efforts soon to reduce the use of Baugher as much as possible? As discussed, his site does not meet the verifiability policy. Marskell (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have , where I can find reliable sources, added additional sources to verify use of Baugher - to deal with the remainder probably needs someone with the Principle Sources (i.e. the Jon Lake Phantom 'Spirit in the Sky' books) (which I don't have) to go through the residuals - hopefully this should allow most of the remainder to be verified or removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have left it open this long, so I can leave it open longer. Editors have put in mighty efforts and I think there's an active WikiProject looking at the aircraft articles. Nigel, I do appreciate that you personally have put in time. Let's see if Baugher can be reduced to an incidental reference, rather than a central one, by citing his own sources. Maybe you can ping a couple of people who likely have the sources. Marskell (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I can help here if you can give me some time, I have added references already. I don't have a problem with Joe Baugher, he goes to the trouble of quoting his own references and his information is generally accurate. Neither this or the article page were on my watchlist, will add them now. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Changed some Baugher links to Lake, not sure what the hurry is please remember it is not just replacing the refs we have to read and check that they say the same facts! MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As I always do, it is difficult to give a page number without reading the reference text first. In replacing the refs I have not found any inaccuracies in Baughers information so far. The multiple references are much harder to replace. You are implying that I am not being thorough. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Apology Nimbus it was not a reply to your statement you are doing some good work but rather trying to explain to Marskell that it is not a quick job. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, everyone is doing a great job although you already know my reservations regarding this "review" and that is why I chose not to participate. Keep your heads above the crocs! Bzuk (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
(Edit conflict)Accepted MilB. I did feel it was aimed directly at me though as I appear to be the only editor currently adding alternative references. It will take a long time. I am also trying to illustrate the point that Baugher's references are good and verifiable as they match those given in the very comprehensive 300 page 'Phantom Story' book that I am using. A paradox is that the F-104 Starfighter article failed its GA nomination partly on the opinion of the reviewer that he would rather see web references using the argument that if he did not have access to the book then it was not verifiable, I am struggling with this state of affairs, this also questions the integrity of the editor who placed the reference. I know where you are coming from Bill. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed as many as Baughers refs as I can using Lakes Spirit in the Skies cant find any more direct equivalent texts. Interesting comments about the review we just have to do our best while the playing field moves about from underneath us! MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear

I'll start a new section header for this, because I know there's people here concerned over the review process.

First, there is no excplicit deadline. There is no "do this, or else" at the current WP:FAR. Quite the opposite: if there's some response to input, it will be kept open. The fact that this has been open since 17 November should tell you there's no rush. I poked this talk page because it had been three months since it started.

Baugher. OK, I am sure he's absolutely diligent, having looked. Just as you or I would be diligent in trying to create a comprehensive hobby site. Perhaps there have been zero transmission errors between his books and his site. But it does not meet WP:V, because the man is not published in this field (AFAICS).

None of this tussle is bad, really. I think there's a great WikiProject at work here and, while it may seem cold comfort, I think this review can be of great benefit to it. Next time you want to go to FAC, you can look back at this and say "let's do it that way." Go to the main sources and reduce the uncertain net sources. While at it on this article, try to reduce the ToC to a reasonable size—it's still somewhat overwhelming.

This will be kept, I'm sure. There is no deadline, just an understanding of whether people are working on it. Marskell (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire claim of Baugher and Goebel of not being verifiable is fallacious. Verifiable sites are merely defined as: "relying on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Publishing on a webpage is entirely consistent with the definition of publishing and is underscored by numerous web-based publishing enterprises that are part of the contemporary publishing industry. There are countless E-publishing sites that form a legitimate part of the publishing world. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
We've gone through this. From V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Baugher has not been published in the relevant field. Marskell (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Then my use of Baugher's research in multiple instances in periodical and book form for Altitude Publishing among others, then qualifies. Bzuk (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
If Altitude Publishing is a reputable aviation publisher, then yes, it could be used. I would be a little hesitant over a publisher that is itself recycling material from personal webpages, however. Marskell (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Folks, Joe Baugher goes to all lengths to be accurate in his work. I have verified his data at times with books in my library (same ones in his bibliography). I have also dealt with him personally in emails siting references and photographs to update his articles and a/c status in the s/n search engine. If anyone finds errors, typos, changes, etc in any of his articles, please, please, contact him with your changes and references. He'll update those changes in many times with in a few days, couple of weeks on the outside. He is dedicated to accuracy and a pleasure to work with. Respectfully submitted, LanceBarber (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hear Hear! I'm sure Joe will be gratified to know that his work is appreciated by many (if not all). --Red Sunset 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am one of them. Surely. But still a bit less than the marvellous T. Cooper.^-))--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Introduction needs to be significantly shortened, and there doesn't need to be a section header for every other paragraph. Karl Dickman talk 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 21:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Calvert 1991.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II/Archive_1&oldid=1145887223"