Well, "Phantom versus MiG-21 (Fighter Performance in Practice)” appeared at Amazon...
http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-versus-MiG-21-Unexploited-maneuverability/dp/8660210174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298280240&sr=1-1
It was possible to see chapters at:
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=vjUcnGdH10wC#v=onepage&q&f=false
Here are another comparison, TAC's this time..
"The USN evaluation of the F-8E found that the MiG-21 could out turn the F-8 in a close-in fight.Zoom performance was comparable below 25,000 ft and on station time was also comparable. Large size and prominent smoke trail was a disadvantage. The F-8E was capable of exceeding the MiG-21 speed limit at low altitude. Acceleration performance was better than the MiG-21 at low and medium altitudes below 1.2 MachADC Evaluated the F-106 and found its radar capable of acquisition and that radar snap-up attack with all aspect armament should be used to exploit MiG-21 lack of fire control. The F-106 could use better acceleration to get beyond MiG-21 speed limit if not in an advantageous position. The F-106 should use missiles then close in to gun kill position. It was the consensus of ADC that the U.S. needed to expedite procurement of cannon for F-106, and replacement of its canopy bar with clear pane. It was concluded that the F-106 shouldn’t attempt a slow speed turning contest and should keep its speed from 400-450 KCAS during patrol and engagement.The TAC evaluation of the F-5A revealed that within performance limits, the F-5 had considerable capability to engage the MiG-21. The F-5 had performance advantage below 15,000 feet, however the MiG-21 had higher Mach capability at higher altitude. Overall turn comparison was about equal and level acceleration was equal in military power, MiG-21 had a slight advantage in afterburner. They had comparable fire control systems. The F-5 controlled the tactical engagement effectively and if defensive separation was necessary, the F-5 could exceed the MiG-21 airspeed limit below 15,000 ft. The F-5 could closely simulate the MiG-21 up to Mach 1.2 for combat crew training in ACM, dissimilar aircraft engagements. "
As a fan of the toom this is very interesting, but what I find fascinating is the evaluation of the F-106, vs Mig-21
Although I am unfamiliar with the book, having not followed up on the link provided , I assume it was the results of evaluations conducted by the United States armed forces in the 70's.
When presented with the opportunity to carry out evaluations even the most unlikely comparisons are made, but to get to the point I find fascinating the an ADC fighter intercepting Mig-21's over CONUS or the frozen wastes of the Arctic, given the Soviet AAR capability of the time.
Eventually the F-106 got its gun and would probably have to make use the vertical energy fight as the Falcon needed a barn door as a target to achieve a splash ( of course their was always Genie, Im not being serious)
My money's on the Mig in that particular comparison, though pilot skill and training and combat persistence may decide otherwise.
Must have a look at the book
Thanks
Yeah, TAC did some interesting evaluations...I put it because I find them odd and opposite to what science teaches..
I believe F-106 was included because of remote posibility of deploying them somewhere (just like F-102 was a little in Vietnam, or Soviet Su-15 in Egypt) or to fill the pattern of various designs so one can deduce something smart when just see another design. I think 106 has tremendous lift at some part of envelope and downhill combat is one where it excells.
As I said, Tac evaluations looks odd to me. I think book has nothing to do with them but with pilot's and technical manuals of competitors.
Cheers !