Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II/Archive 2

Survivors section
Virtually all of the recent edits have been in this section, placed by well meaning editors that probably do not realise that this is an FA, which is causing us some work with adding references (or deleting). There must be many of the venerable 'Toom' preserved in one place or the other, all as notable as each other perhaps and the list (as it is becoming) needs to be 'moderated'. I notice that the section has become accidentally USA biased, perhaps a good way to balance this is to have a mix of survivors from all the operator countries? There is a Phantom on the gate at RAF Leuchars (placed by an editor recently and deleted) but I could not find a good reference for it in time sadly. Can I suggest a 'nowiki' note at the bottom of this section advising that all additions need to be fully referenced or something to this effect? Nimbus227 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "accidentally USA biased"?? You mean it's biased if the nation that designed the Phantom, and produced and operated it in more numbers than any other nation, preserved more of those airframes, and has more sources attesting to the fact that they are preserved? Would I expect the survivors section on the Supermarine Spitfire to have more coverage of British surviving airframes and locations? Of course I would! Does that constitute bias? Of course not, only info on America is capable of being biased!! ;) If an editor reads about or knows of a Phantom being used as a gate guard on a USAF, USN, or USMC base, or in a museum in the US, and can cite it, what is wrong with that? Is he/she supposed to search for a Phantom in Britain, Germany, or Turkey to add too? Is it the editor's fault people in those countries aren't documenting their own surviving airframes? Evidently it is if you are an American editor! If the only properly-documented survivors are in America, are we to add improperly-documented ones from other nations to balance it out? What if we added every surviving Phantom airframe outside of the US, porperly documented, but it was still just a fraction of those in the US? Which of the properly documented US airframes should we remove to make the section less "biased"? Please realize what your comments sound like to Americans, and recognize that "bias" accusations can be made by anyone against any nation, and are usually not very constructive, especially in the context of a list! There are others ways to phrase what you mean without the negative connotations of bias - even if you didn't mean it in a negative sense, and I assume you didn't, it can still be taken that way. Remember that WP is a work in progress - it's fine to point out where more work is needed, but don't "accidentally" insult other editors when you do so. - BillCJ (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Steady on Bill, I think you know me better than that by now. 'Accidentally biased' is perhaps an unfortunate term I used (but I have had a very long day at work) and I did not use the single word 'biased' (I should state categorically that I am not anti-US or even racist, which is strange for an Englishman, I grant you). I am concerned that the survivor section might get out of control. I thought that a good way round it would be to provide a balanced list from around the world (which of course would include a higher number of US aircraft). If you have a look at the survivors (only three?) in the F-104 Starfighter article they are from Germany, Denmark and Norway (no US or Canadian survivors). Someone has labelled that section 'Outside US', is that biased?. I agree that it is down to editors to make the effort to add or keep them (hence my futile attempt at keeping the RAF Leuchars entry that someone else added). It is also interesting that the photograph in this article of the German F-4 remains when its text line was deleted. To me if there is a photograph of the specific aircraft next to the text then that is good enough reference, but perhaps not for an FA? I notice that some articles are resorting to Google Earth references and co-ordinates to prove that these aircraft are really there, this is plain silly . I keep vague guidelines of WP:FANCRUFT in my head when editing articles, surely a way to avoid this is balance? I have helped you with photographs for two articles and you have taken my comments totally the wrong way and given me a blasting for no reason. Sorry I spoke now. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as the gate guardian entries that have been added without references, just fact tag them. Don't feel like you have to find a reference for them.  If you feel like it and can find one, great.  Just don't feel like to.  Back to the broadsides and other naval action if you want. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe they were 'tagged' but removed very quickly afterwards (might be wrong because I always am). A harmless 'constructive' comment has got me wondering why I spend time on this project. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nimbus, sorry for the broadside! I've had a few rough weeks healthwise, and I'm sorry I'm not up to my normal self. I never even thought of you as being "racist", that never entered my mind (and usually doesn't about anyone without good cause). I'm just on a hair-trigger right now, and "US bias" is one of the trigger-issues. I did say that I assumed you didn't mean it in a negative sense. I should have made my comments more focused on the third person, and not on you, and for that I do apologize. I honestly have no malice for you, and I do appreciate the help you gave me. I stand behind the core meaning of what I said, and I do see that you understood and agree with my basic point. We don't have to agree on everything to get along, and I will try to avoid any more broad shots in your direction, as they are unwarranted no matter my points. - BillCJ (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a good broadside though Bill! We are all aircraft fans and it does not do to get bogged down in racism etc. Just have a look at the Jewish/Islam stuff on here (no, don't!) I have enough grief in my life (disabled son) and I come here primarily to add content and relax. I had a health scare recently which made me think about things, as my older daughters would say 'chill out, dad'. I don't understand this language but I think it means 'stay calm'! All the best. Nimbus227 (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Designations
Most all the F-4 designations are mentioned in the text. Reference 1 (a footnote) mentions AH, F4H and McDonnell Model 98. But Model 98 is not mentioned in the text. Not sure at what stage in the early development that number applied though. Any help/info on this is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a look in my books but could not find a reference to the model number, I found this from Joe Baugher, looks like it was the whole project model number, perhaps before anything was built. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * More here. It does not seem to be mentioned in Angelucci-The American Fighter which is one of the sources he cites. Nimbus (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. I didn't expect that info to be on the internet.  -Fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims and Scores
Very precise wording is required with air to air combat scores and claims. Typically air crew claim larger numbers of kills than the actual number. Air forces try to verify producing a smaller number - though this is not necessarily the correct one.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure precise wording is required, I would just presume the wording reflects the reference used. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

107½ MiG kills
How exactly did they score half a kill? The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably an F-4 and another aircraft contributed significantly and roughly equally to the kill. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened ??
What the heck has gone on here ? Because we left this article in beautiful shape after its February 2008 FAR, I was really excited to see it scheduled for the mainpage, but on closer examination, it's been extensively altered since its FAR, and is once again loaded up with unformatted citations, non-reliable sources, listiness, dash problems, and more !!! Most of the new problems seem to be in the "Survivors" section, which is not in shape to be on the mainpage. I'm considering cutting all of that to a daughter article so this won't be a mainpage embarrassment. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done; that was a lot of poorly cited, listy cruft. A better summary should be written for this section before mainpage day.  There are still some cleanup needs, and some unformatted citations; can't a featured article be maintained to standard without letting this kind of cruft creep in ???  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you mean crufty list? I changed the title to reflect the same terminology in use for the section title. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC).

Here's the diff since FAR; that's an awful lot of change in only 3 months for an article that should be stable. I hope the regular editors will check over that diff and make sure everything is in order. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Caption question
What does this caption mean: "The Blue Angels fly their F-4Js abreast, for cross-country events."? Do they fly them that way when they are in a cross-country event? Do they fly abreast whenever they are going cross-country to an event? What the hell does it mean? I want to get that superfluous comma out of there, but I want it to say something that makes sense after I do. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed to "The Blue Angels flew F-4Js from 1969 to 1974" - that old caption also used "fly" in an ambiguous way that would probably be interpreted as saying "currently fly". Tempshill (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Numerous"?
"Israeli Phantoms saw extensive combat in numerous Arab–Israeli conflicts"

A quibble on use of the word "numerous" in this sentence -- "Numerous" is "a large number of" or "many".

The F-4 was in service in Israel during the period 1969-2004. Depending on how we define "Arab–Israeli conflict", the number of Arab-Israeli "periods of hostilities" during this time was apparently on the order of 3-5 (per our article) -- not what I would call "numerous".

It seems to me that we might want to make a change along the lines of either replacing "numerous" with "several", or replacing "conflicts" with "incidents".

As I say, a quibble. Comments? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a quibble. I noticed that, too, and I would have changed it but I didn't feel like it. I say you should just go ahead and change things like that without discussion from now on. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

History section needs work!
The history section is completely baffling. It repeats the naming and basic history three times in the space of one on-screen page. In one section it is implied the original design was a ground-attack fighter, but armed with the Sparrow III and no guns (that's not a typical ground-attack layout, to say the least). The very next section talks about it being a modular design with multiple roles, including cannon armament. Is one of these statements incorrect? Even if they are both accurate, it's extremely confusing. Maury (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Scan0016kom.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Scan0016kom.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nigel Ish (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this article really complete without some mention of pardo's push?
One of the most noteworthy feats of in the latter half of the 20th century, and it was performed in Phantoms. http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1296/pardo.htm -24.82.140.138 (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree wholeheartedly, but might be a bit biased because one of the participants is my father in law. 98.203.252.255 (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Falklands War category
Should Category:Falklands War aircraft be applied to this article? Two were deployed at Wideawake as a protection force Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three Phantom FGR2s (XV484, XV468 and XV466) of 29 Squadron RAF operated on Quick Reaction Alert from Ascension Island from 25 May to 14 July so probably yes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Phantom II were not used in combat during the Falklands war, and Ascension was too far away anyway. A single Vulcan bomber flew from Ascension to Falklands, but with minimal payload and many, many mid-air refuelings.Phantom II were stationed after the war in Port Stanley, though. Lastdingo (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Operational History: Germany
The article states utilization of German F4s until 2012, however, I believe the last ones are withdrawn in 2008. See here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/91151/ Somebody wanna check that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.121.210 (talk • contribs)


 * Looks like the article linked on that forum states the last F-4s were retired this year from the English translation. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * German Phantoms are still operational! The last remaining active unit is Jagdgeschwader 71 "Richthofen" (JG 71"R", Fighterwing 71 "R") at Wittmundhafen. The retirement of F-4F operations of JG 74 at Neuburg probably triggered this confusion. JG 74 now operates solely the replacement aircraft type after more than 2 years of simultaneous ops of both types. F-4F ops at Wittmundhafen are in fact envisioned to last till 2012/13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The translation of the article mentioned above is due to its automatic nature quite poor and probably misunderstood. The facts are stated in the preceding comment. V/R rhinowizzo741 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, using computerized translations from one language to another - w/o deep editing by someone who really knows both languages IS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA. Who didn't know this? Computers do a lot of "garbage in / garbage out" especially when trying to do translations. If you don't know how to read the German, French, Russian, Japanese, whatever, yourself, then NEVER trust a translation done by a computer. Computers make mistakes in every paragraph!98.67.108.241 (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Luftwaffe also flies F - 4s armed with AMRAAM missiles, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.
 * That is the whole idea behind the Luftwaffe's continuing to fly F - 4s as air-defense fighters: they have been modernized with up-to-date radars, missiles, computers, etc., and especially with AMRAAMS and up-to-date versions of the Sidewinder missile.
 * The Luftwaffe never did get the air-defense version of the Tornado, nor any F - 15s, F - 16s, nor F - 18s, nor any Swedish or French fighters -- and also the MiG - 29s that Germany got from East Germany were not very good fighter. Those have all been sent to the scrap heap. Hence, the Luftwaffe has two kinds of fighters - F - 4s for air defense, and Tornadoes for ground attack. Perhaps the Luftwaffe will get some Eurofighters soon (if not already) and some F - 35s. French Rafaels or Americam F - 22s? I doubt it.98.67.108.241 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's F-4, F-15, F-16, MiG-29, etc. with no spaces. Further operator details should be added to McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators first, then a summary here in the main article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Costs
On 28 September 2008, User:Emt147 changed the cost data using Template:Inflation. This template uses the United States Consumer Price Index. The US Consumer Price Index is a long-standing measure of inflation, equivalent to to the UK Retail Price Index (RPI), and is therefore justifiable for this purpose. See: The Cost of Seapower: The Influence of Money on Naval Affairs from 1815 to the Present Day, by Philip Pugh, pub Conway Maritime Press (1992), ISBN ISBN 0-85177-419-9.

Nevertheless, here are other methods of adjusting prices to take account of inflation, and I think the article should show the original data as well.

Version before 28 September 2008
Note: Costs are in 1965 United States dollars and have not been adjusted for inflation.
 * Knaack, Marcelle Size. Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems: Volume 1 Post-World War II Fighters 1945-1973. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1978. ISBN 0-912799-59-5.

Version as of 5 October 2008
Note: Original amounts were in 1965 United States dollars, but the figures in these tables have been adjusted for inflation.


 * It depends on what you are trying to demonstrate with the costs. In this case the idea is to illustrate the various expenses associated with this aircraft and an approximate conversion into present-day money is sufficient. Sweating the small details of a dollar here or there is not relevant for the purpose of the article. The original values are perhaps interesting in the historical context but are quite meaningless to those of us who don't know how much candy or Ford Mustangs one could buy for $515 in 1965. - Emt147 Burninate!  06:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft list
Some of those aircraft aren't really comparabe to the Phantom. Ok, they're contemperaneous, but none of them are (for example) two seat multi role aircraft. Whilst they may be a the "next generation" I'd suggest perhaps F14, Tornado, maybe even Saab Viggen. Go easy on me, this is my first comment.. Nickc123 00:15, 15 October 2008
 * WP:Air guidelines say comparable aircraft are of similar role, era, and capability. Those aircraft you mention are all a newer era (next generation as you stated). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The F-4F was unique as a two-seat fighter with medium range armament - best suited for fleet defense and interceptor roles, but too ill-suited for air superiority fighting and therefore the approach wasn't used by other designs. The Mirage III, Saab Draken, MiG-21, MiG-23, Mirage F.1, F-104 and a Suchoi (Su-15?) were some contemporary fighters that would be useful links, but there's no really close equivalent. Well, F-111 was meant to become something similar (and a successor) and the F-15 became a close equivalent, at the latest in the 'E' version + of course the Tornado. Lastdingo (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course in this context one has to differentiate between the Tornado IDS/GR version and the F3. The IDS/GR is in no way useable as either defensive or offensive air combat asset, its air to air armament and avionics equipment is purely for self defense. The F3 version on the other hand lacks a solid air to ground avionics kit, it is designed specifically for Great Britain's needs in air defence, i.e. intercepts on Russian and other Long Range Aviation assets and the latest integrations and upgrades of data link, AIM120, etc. merely improve its capabilties in the air to air end of the business. The once intended MRCA (Multi Role Combat Aircraft) has never left the runways...

As times changed it was (perhaps re-)discovered that putting to many missions into one airframe will quickly overstretch budgets and design capabilities and drawingtable-to-fleet-timelines. Specialization was the key before more capable mission computers and engines entered the scene. Nowadays with these new possibilities we are back to putting it all into one jet, with one pilot, pushing this one carefully selected individual to the very edge of the envelope of human performance. It is just not getting any cheaper though... Therefore the era of the Phantom was a very special time in aviation history. V/R rhinowizzo741 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

'greatest advantage'
"In air combat, the Phantom's greatest advantage was its thrust, which permitted a skilled pilot to engage and disengage from the fight at will. " That's a general 'strength' of supersonic aircraft, and the Phantom wasn't especially strong on this (determining variable = thrust/weight ratio). It was a strength against subsonic/transsonic fighters like the MiG-17 that were encountered over Northern Vietnam, but no strength (just parity) in comparison to almost all modern fighters (Harrier excluded). At the very least this claim should be limited to the combat against subsonic opponents. I think the greatest advantages against contemporary modern fighters were in reality the second crew member (2nd pair of eyes), the good fuel capacity/range/endurance, the long-range radar and its ability to offer a first salvo on target with the Sparrow missile (and pilot training). Lastdingo (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But no doubt about the Phantom's great power. Vs a Starfighter, however, Phantom could not figure so well. The acceleration of F-104 is cleary better starting at high speeds, and perhaps the climb too (the F-104S can reach 270 m.sec, and i don't know how hell F-104A modernized with J79-GE 18 could do, it's lighter than the 'S' version). Phantom could outmanovre it at high level and low speed, so the best was combat and not riding. Against a MiG-21, Phantom'manouver energy is better: MiG can out turn Phantom, but it dropped quicly in speed because it's a lot lighter (=less energy in his body).

Another point:

Some pilots adopted the procedure of running one engine in dry thrust at normal power setting, and the other in afterburner, resulting in the same total thrust as using both engines at full rated military power without generating the tell-tale smoke trail.[citation needed]

This is confirmed by German pilots. I have an aero-magazine in which a JG 71 pilot is claiming exactly this tactic to delete smoke's trail. So for me it's a thing atleast claimed, and arguably true, too.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sure I've seen the technique somewhere, so if you can find a reference, feel free to add a cite.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem, basically, is that my reference is Rivista Italiana Divesa (RID) and you know how is 'acceptable' a non english source here.. the F-4's superior turning continous speed was claimed by Cooper, and again, you know how easy is accepted Cooper here.. so i am talking just as 'observer', not mixing with Ns0.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
According to Featured articles/Cleanup listing, in spite of a FAR a year ago, this article is in dire need of cleanup. Hopefully, editors will get on it right away, or the article should be submitted to WP:FAR for review. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I count five redlinks, some inconsistencies in citations, anything else? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC).
 * The clean up page lists some fact and verification tags that need addressing. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Analogue computer
Has anything written and preserved about the F-4's analogue computer?

Urban myth
Recently, an F-4 crew member added this note: "One very common reason given for the "Phantom" designation amongst F-4 Phantom aircrews, is the distinctive "howl" the aircraft makes in low speed steeply banked turns." Given that the name was derived from the company's earlier Phantom I, it is highly unlikely that the F-4's name had any connection to the flight characteristics of the aircraft, however, it is interesting how an urban myth such as this is propagated. My only concern in the recent edit reversions was that the statement was summarily dismissed which contravenes a popular edict in Wicky land, WP:DBTN and that although the statement was patently illogical, it illustrates the iconic nature of the aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

--- Forgive me for editing/replying this way. I am not familiar with how these discussion pages work. I am the person who wrote the additional sentence that was removed (which you are referencing above). User MBK004 removed it and sent me a message asking me to not add material without "verifiable and reliable sources".

I'm OK with that. Really, I am. However...

I am a former Weapons Controller (ie, military intercept aircraft air traffic controller), AWACS/E3-A Radar Operator, and Forward Air Controller for USAF NORAD 23rd Air Defense Squadron. I am about as reliable and verifiable a source as you can hope for. I specifically mentioned in the comment to the edit "Can't give you a reference" because I am the reference. We called the thing a "Phantom" for the very reason I mentioned.

Moreover, I've actually piloted an F-4 (admittedly as a guest) while I was being given the honour of an "incentive flight" - given to enlisted men as a "reward" for exemplary service. That's not exactly a good reference, I just mention it because it dates me.

After spending so much time around F4's, their pilots, their aircrews, and running countless intercept misisons on actual, real Soviet aircraft (TU-95 Bear bombers, enroute to Cuba) using these very aircraft, I find it rather entertaining to be lectured by a kid who's still in college (as best I can tell from his user profile), and most likely has never seen one of these beasts actually fly!

All in all, though, I do not begrudge you your editorial authority. I imagine you are trying to protect the integrity of the page, and I support you all the way in that.

Like I mentioned before: the only reason I could not cite a reference is because I was speaking from personal experience as one who worked with these aircraft up close and personal.

And, just as you mentioned, the aircraft arrived on the scene already named. I am adding a bit of additional "lore" about the name that was common amongst us who worked with the aircraft. But the "lore" of the thing is every bit as much a fact of it's existence as the fact that it came in both single a double seat configurations, or that it had landing gear.

K. Wallace ---


 * Sorry I would have thought the crews called it Phantom because that was its name!! not because of any attribute noted later. Sorry to say that recollections from aircrew are not a reliable source as it is considered original research and really needs a reliable citation. Although I am not sure "why dont we call the Phantom a Phantom" is particularly notable, if it howls why did they not call it a Howler! MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As Mr. Wallace contends, a story concerning the sound of the F-4 grew into a myth that rightly or wrongly, was attributed to an actual phenomenon. With that in mind, the urban myth can be an interesting aside, but does require verification as to an attributable source, perhaps, an authority describing the distinctive sound of the aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Call it by it's name? Now that's silly.  Who ever heard of such a thing!  Think of the mayhem that would ensue.  ;-)  I agree that my observation is purely folklore, though, and the aircraft did already arrive so named.  It's worth noting, though, that it's predescessor, The F4, made the same sound. Which may have played a role in the F4 II's name.  But I'd doubt if you could find a reference for that. Some of us supposed that the drop-swept stablizer on both a/c created a vortex through which the dual engine exhaust passed... but that's just conjecture.  And besides, this sound was definately linked to a low speed bank turn.  Anyway, I think the article is good as you have it and I'm not going to bother you with more.  OK?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.64.61.66 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW - in my experience, the "howl" made by the F-4C/D models in the traffic pattern was very similar to the F-104G. For some reason, the F-4E didn't make the same sound. Dukeford (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gun
The original had no gun, ironically it was with an F-4 Phantom II that the first and so far only gun kill at supersonic speed was made.--LandonJaeger (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)