Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Article history Template:WikiProject banner shell User:MiszaBot/config
What does this mean?
"The baseline performance of a Mach 2-class fighter with long-range and a bomber-sized payload would be the template for the next generation of large and light/middle-weight fighters optimized for daylight air combat."
What is a "bomber sized payload"? Is there some threshold that distinguishes a bomber payload fun another? What specific "large and lightweight" fighters was the F-4 a template for? That seems like a complete contradiction. A lightweight fighter is an F-5. A large fighter is an F-15. A middleweight is an F-18C Hornet or maybe an F-16. The only fighters that have any real relationship to the F-4 are the F-15 and F-14, which are both large fighters, neither one was designed with the intent to carry air to ground munitions, which makes a "bomber sized payload" seem strange. I don't see how the F-4 is a "template" for any other aircraft, aside from generally being the first modern fighter with integrated systems and intended to use radar and missiles as primary weapons from the start. It also got a head start on the more recent trend towards multi role fighters.
Idumea47b (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- The F-4 is not one of the aircraft featured in the cited source plus no page number is given (not good for a Featured Article). I searched the source for this information but couldn't find it or anything similar. I also tried to find which editor added it (the text was not there at the Featured Article Review) but failed. I suggest the sentence is removed completely. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Citation 183 may be unreliable
The Website cited uses this Wikipedia page as its own source, creating a cycle of sourcing where there is no origial proof of the information provided. Sadly the website of Citation 183 itself doesnt list what info stems from what source, meaning either the sources of that article have to be individually verfied or a new source for the info has to be found. 2001:7C7:2051:195:91B8:DCA0:2443:C967 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Privately Owned
I was adding the privately owned part and missed adding the citation. I have added a citation for that part now. Jjoonnii (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
F4 US Navy accidents. When reading Mike Spick's book he says that there were quite a few catapult accidents with the F4 so should this not be mentioned? Also, is there reference to accidents vs contemporary aircraft? I was surprised the F4 was so accident prone. Roy Szweda (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)