Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "NOT FAST. QUITE FURIOUS: The Sabre’s Ugly Cousin Was A Pretty Dreadful Fighter" video.

Pilots who transitioned from the F-4J phantoms where disappointed that the F-14A did not accelerate as well as their previous aircraft and did not see it as an improvement in performance. The F-4J probably had superior maneuverability though most of the flight envelope other than at very low speed.
2
The F-111B was not an Air Force design. The general configuration of the aircraft was determined as much by Navy needs as those the Air Force.
2
@razgriz4978 The F4J was the hot rod of F-4s. I have not seen an EM diagram of these two, nor read pilot reports of dogfights between them, which is why I said probably, and at higher speeds. But the F4J had a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-14A, and as I said pilots who transitioned felt the F-14A was sluggish. Acceleration and sustained turn rate are both products of excess thrust. The F-14 could probably turn a tighter radius when slow with the wings out, but at higher speeds the F-4J probably had some advantage in sustained turn and use of the vertical.
2
@razgriz4978 Yes T/W is not always the determining factor -- just like wing loading -- but it is usually related to thrust/drag, which is determining. I'm sure the F-5E turned better in part of envelope, but that doesn't mean it will usually "beat" a MiG-21 any more than it will usually "beat" an F-4. As to your point that the Tomcat has more lift than the F-4 well of course it does at high AOA, but that isn't necessarily determining in a dogfight, and misses the point about sustained turn at high speed, which is thrust vs drag, not total lift. I'm not saying that the F-14 was not a better airplane than the F-4, only that its performance was not superior in every respect. I'm not going to argue more with you because it's too tiring and you will believe what you want anyway.
1
@croskerk That's because the FJ-4 was derived from the Sabre while the FJ-1 was not. The FJ-1 preceded the Sabre and is substantially different in more ways than wing sweep. The resemblance is just that, as resemblance.
1
@croskerk I didn't tell you the FJ-1 and -4 were different, which you could already see. What you didn't seem to understand was why the FJ-4 looked more like the Sabre than the FJ-1 did. I can't tell what you mean by: "what jet came around to lead the FJ-1 to said design". If your "said design" is the FJ-1 then nothing led to it. It was North American's first jet fighter, and was based more off the P-51 than anything else. If your "said design" is the FJ-4, it was derived from the F-86. The F-86 was not just an FJ-1 with swept wings, it was a different airplane.
1
@croskerk Man, you just don't listen, do you, yet you want insult my intelligence. The question you said I need to answer has already been answered, but you are too busy hurling insults to see it. The FJ-1 doesn't come from anywhere other than the NA-134, which was based on the P-51. The FJ-1 does not lead to the FJ-4. The FJ-1 was the grandaddy. The FJ-1 was not “built off the XP-86”. And the XP-86 was not built off the P-80. The XP-86 was designed slightly after or in parallel to the FJ-1/NA-134, and to USAF rather than Navy requirements, so it was lighter and faster even before its wings were swept back. It had a much narrower fuselage. The later FJ-4 Fury is the offspring of the F-86 rather than the FJ-1. I’ve tried to help you, but since you want to act like a jerk you’ll have to help yourself the rest of the way to understanding this. Bye.
1
@Airsally That because they are based off the F-86 rather than off the FJ-1. Crosjerk2704 doesn't seem to be able to grasp this but hopefully you will.
1
@croskerk I was responding to your inaccurate comments in more detail than you used uttering them. It's not my fault that you have poor reading comprehension.
1