F4 PHANTOM

[AG-51_Razor]

From reading through all these pages, it's obvious that there are as many opinions/preferences as there were variants of the iconic fighter. Personally, I could not possibly care less for any of them that weren't carrier capable naval versions but I would definitely end up buying it regardless just because I am hopelessly adicted to this world that DCS has created!

[upyr1]

37 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah IDK how much the backseat work differs. But you start with one model and do it, and do your best to reuse the code for the second one.

 

Frankly we have no idea how jester actually "works" or how sophisticated it is an AI (frankly jester mostly sucks IMO). I also don't see ED licensing code from HB, or other 3rd parties. Nor do I see HB licensing it to other 3rd parties.

 

In fact, ED looks to just be making their own API for it with "Drunk Gunner Ivan" for the Mi24. So hopefully that will develop into a standardized product.

I hope that Ivan will also be able to fly as well, so that we can play as the WSO.  

[Tengu]

I think most Phantom phans can rationalize two versions, presumably one naval version and one land-based version.  And ideally, the more commonality there is between versions, the easier a time any developer would have. 

 

But when you read up, it's crazy how many variations there are in various Phantom versions, even while staying within a Navy path or a AF path.  If you look at the E model, it's obvious that it has a gun and a different radar in the nose.  But I had forgotten how many more subtle airframe differences there were.

 

B/N's had thin wings.  USAF C/D/E's and USN J/S's had bulged wings to accommodate fatter tires.  

 

B's through D's had inboard leading edge flaps that E's and J/S's lacked.  Apparently the N's had them fixed closed.  These changes aren't to be confused with the leading edge slats that late E's and S's got.

 

Apparently late B's through the Navy line had slotted LE's on their stabilators for slow speed handling back to the deck.  The USAF models wouldn't have needed these as much, though the E model appears to have them.  I think there's even another variation with the stiffeners / double plates halfway back the airfoil.

 

The E's and J's picked up a #7 fuel cell, I believe at the rear end of the spine.  That apparently helped maintain the center of gravity with the E's longer nose and the weight of the gun.  I'm not sure what the J did with the added weight vs COG.  

 

The UK K & M variants started life as J's, but the larger Spey engines required changes to the fuselage.  If you look at the "waterline" created by wing, the Spey-engined Phantoms draw a deeper "draft".  The inlets are apparently larger and deeper to accommodate more mass flow, though I can't admit to having noticed it before.  The Spey-powered jets were faster accelerating than J79-powered variants, but had slower max speeds despite having ~15% more thrust.  I'm guessing from the extra drag?  The UK versions had auxiliary inlet doors on the sides to allow more air while taxiing.  I'm not sure if these replaced or were in addition to the auxiliary doors found on the belly of J-79 Phantoms.  Finally, there was that crazy long nosewheel strut on the K's.

 

There are other mechanical differences between the US and USAF versions like basket vs boom refuelling, the inboard pylons or the catapult bridle hooks at the wing root.  That doesn't even get into the "bumps and bulges" for your various ECM and RHAW antenna.

 

A lot of people have talked about the different avionics, and yeah... that's major even staying within type like early, mid, and late E.  But even the "easy" stuff like the 3D models and the FM's will have significant differences depending on what versions you're talking about.

 

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, Tengu said:

I think most Phantom phans can rationalize two versions, presumably one naval version and one land-based version.  And ideally, the more commonality there is between versions, the easier a time any developer would have. 

 

But when you read up, it's crazy how many variations there are in various Phantom versions, even while staying within a Navy path or a AF path.  If you look at the E model, it's obvious that it has a gun and a different radar in the nose.  But I had forgotten how many more subtle airframe differences there were.

 

B/N's had thin wings.  USAF C/D/E's and USN J/S's had bulged wings to accommodate fatter tires.  

 

B's through D's had inboard leading edge flaps that E's and J/S's lacked.  Apparently the N's had them fixed closed.  These changes aren't to be confused with the leading edge slats that late E's and S's got.

 

Apparently late B's through the Navy line had slotted LE's on their stabilators for slow speed handling back to the deck.  The USAF models wouldn't have needed these as much, though the E model appears to have them.  I think there's even another variation with the stiffeners / double plates halfway back the airfoil.

 

The E's and J's picked up a #7 fuel cell, I believe at the rear end of the spine.  That apparently helped maintain the center of gravity with the E's longer nose and the weight of the gun.  I'm not sure what the J did with the added weight vs COG.  

 

The UK K & M variants started life as J's, but the larger Spey engines required changes to the fuselage.  If you look at the "waterline" created by wing, the Spey-engined Phantoms draw a deeper "draft".  The inlets are apparently larger and deeper to accommodate more mass flow, though I can't admit to having noticed it before.  The Spey-powered jets were faster accelerating than J79-powered variants, but had slower max speeds despite having ~15% more thrust.  I'm guessing from the extra drag?  The UK versions had auxiliary inlet doors on the sides to allow more air while taxiing.  I'm not sure if these replaced or were in addition to the auxiliary doors found on the belly of J-79 Phantoms.  Finally, there was that crazy long nosewheel strut on the K's.

 

There are other mechanical differences between the US and USAF versions like basket vs boom refuelling, the inboard pylons or the catapult bridle hooks at the wing root.  That doesn't even get into the "bumps and bulges" for your various ECM and RHAW antenna.

 

A lot of people have talked about the different avionics, and yeah... that's major even staying within type like early, mid, and late E.  But even the "easy" stuff like the 3D models and the FM's will have significant differences depending on what versions you're talking about.

 

Right now I'd like Eagle to at least get started on the 3d models so we can get more AI Phanotms. I know my dream would be the definitive block for each letter model. At this point I'm thinking due to how complex things can get I think we need to start a community Phantom II mod

[ebabil]

just a little bump

 

[upyr1]

On 2/24/2021 at 1:27 AM, ebabil said:

just a little bump

 

When it comes to the Phantom, I find it hard to narrow down my list.  I think the E and J are good choices since they would be a good match for the MiG-21 Bis. The M and K would be great for the Royal Air Force and Navy but if I had to pick one it would be the K as it was used by both. The D is also a must have in my view as it is what Ritchie and Bellevue were flying when they became aces. If possible the combat tree D would be cool. Then if the C and B can be obtained by hitting the delete key on some systems in the D then why not?  

 

 

 

[ebabil]

I am in love with this bird. I hope we will get our hands on this module before it vanishes from the skies

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by ebabil

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

When it comes to the Phantom, I find it hard to narrow down my list.  I think the E and J are good choices since they would be a good match for the MiG-21 Bis. The M and K would be great for the Royal Air Force and Navy but if I had to pick one it would be the K as it was used by both. The D is also a must have in my view as it is what Ritchie and Bellevue were flying when they became aces. If possible the combat tree D would be cool. Then if the C and B can be obtained by hitting the delete key on some systems in the D then why not?  

 

The only reason why I'd go M instead of K is purely historical, it was more numerous, was historically based in Germany during the Cold War, at most of the RAF airbases in Germany. It also had a slightly improved RADAR, at least in A/G mapping - it didn't have to have the space saving provisions the K needed to fit on the much smaller UK aircraft carriers.

 

Also the K in a carrier-borne role didn't see much use at all, the RAF K and M however, did see extensive use as a QRA platform, intercepting/shadowing Tu-95RTs coming close the coast.

 

I also think the M was able to use the SUU-23/A gun pod, whereas the K wasn't (or at least didn't in FAA service - someone correct me). I don't think the M had the really long nose strut, so that's one less difference over the J as far as the 3D model goes.

[Fangs Out]

for our Phantom flyers out there, heres a funny video talking about some of the stuff on the F-4E

 

[Berserk]

With all the effort ED made to create realistic aircraft carrier operations and Heatblur Forrestal Cold War carrier coming i think it would be a big missed opportunity not to make any Navy Phantom to use all of that.

 

I think F-4E for the USAF and F-4J for the Navy could be the sweet spot. Both were direct counterparts for corresponding services, both have some advantages over each other to make both of them interesting. 

F-4E having internal gun and F-4J having more powerfull radar able to look down and carrier capable. Both having very interesting history full of warfare.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Berserk

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Berserk said:

 

I think F-4E for the USAF and F-4J for the Navy could be the sweet spot. Both were direct counterparts for corresponding services, both have 

A lot of people want the e and j, the real question is what other models do we want? 

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

The only reason why I'd go M instead of K is purely historical, it was more numerous, was historically based in Germany during the Cold War, at most of the RAF airbases in Germany. It also had a slightly improved RADAR, at least in A/G mapping - it didn't have to have the space saving provisions the K needed to fit on the much smaller UK aircraft carriers.

 

Also the K in a carrier-borne role didn't see much use at all, the RAF K and M however, did see extensive use as a QRA platform, intercepting/shadowing Tu-95RTs coming close the coast.

 

I also think the M was able to use the SUU-23/A gun pod, whereas the K wasn't (or at least didn't in FAA service - someone correct me). I don't think the M had the really long nose strut, so that's one less difference over the J as far as the 3D model goes.

The k would be great with a British carrier

[Triple-R]

On 2/17/2021 at 3:39 PM, WinterH said:

 

The reason some people including myself are semi-insisting for more than one F-4 variants is that, you simply can't please with one when it comes to F-4. Your idea for example, Vietnam is where F-4 made its name, is true enough. But I personally don't care an iota about a Vietnam F-4 unless it is in addition to an 80s or at least late 70s one. Similarly, if we get an F-4, but it isn't F-4E Block 53 or 58, but it is a naval F-4, again, we may as well not get one as far as I am concerned. And others feel exactly the opposite way I'm sure... some want Vietnam birds, others want later birds to represent a strike fighter and its worldwide service. Some want an air force bird with internal gun, smart munitions, targeting pods, others want naval aviation phantoms and their look down capable radars. Phantom is a bird that offer many, many flavors in its different versions, but is also secretly rather divisive in that one period/variant will not do anything for fans of the other. We'll either get latest-greatest of production variants, which happens to be the variant I like anyway, but that will not please a lot of others, or we will get a naval variant that will be alien to great majority of F-4 operators and conflicts they took part in. And that one will not please a lot of others as well.

 

Spanish studio Aerges is coming with Mirage F1 and they are planning to do 4 variants in a single module, without even additional payments. Granted, they are not as different among one another as F-4E vs F-4S or any early F-4 vs any late F-4. Well the final variant they wil do, F1M is still considerably different anyway. We also have had modules with two versions that feature different cockpits, systems, even engines: L-39C & ZA, C-101EB & CC, F-14B & A-135GR early & A-135GR late & A-95GR etc. We have also had cases of owners of one module getting a discount for other, or get discounted bundles of two etc. I do think, and hope, that the situation is ripe for multiple versions of F-4, at least 2 I'd hope.

 

I hope you don't mind, I snipped a bit for brevity.  

 

I get your point, and I think we're on the same page.  The Phantom was widely used and had such a long service life, that it covers multiple technological eras and operational theaters.  There's no way 1 variant will please even half the people, in my opinion. If I could be sure that a variant I was interested in was coming out, I'd be happy to shell out ahead of time for a variant I'm not so interested in - assuming module prices stay fairly static.  I realize many people cannot afford to do that.

[upyr1]

8 hours ago, Triple-R said:

 

I hope you don't mind, I snipped a bit for brevity.  

 

I get your point, and I think we're on the same page.  The Phantom was widely used and had such a long service life, that it covers multiple technological eras and operational theaters.  There's no way 1 variant will please even half the people, in my opinion. If I could be sure that a variant I was interested in was coming out, I'd be happy to shell out ahead of time for a variant I'm not so interested in - assuming module prices stay fairly static.  I realize many people cannot afford to do that.

In the poll I started 

We were suggesting that if anyone picks up the Phantom that perhaps there should be a discount/ sliding scale based on how much work it took to differentiate between a model 

 

[Spino]

I think the easiest way to satisfy most people with an F-4 Phantom would be to make 2 versions that were very similar, like the F-4B and F-4C.  That way you have a carrier plane and a land-based plane with basically identical external models and flight characteristics.

 

Granted that won't make people who want an F-4E very happy, because the F-4E has a gun and fits more scenarios as far as DCS is concerned (we don't have a Vietnam map, but we do have PG, Syria and soon the Marianas).  The only situation I can specifically think of that calls for an F-4E though is the Syria map, and that only because the Israelis never bought any F-4 versions other than the E.  The F-4C would actually fit rather well on PG though, in the hands of the IRIAF.  They bought the C, D, and E as I recall.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Spino said:

I think the easiest way to satisfy most people with an F-4 Phantom would be to make 2 versions that were very similar, like the F-4B and F-4C.  That way you have a carrier plane and a land-based plane with basically identical external models and flight characteristics.

 

Granted that won't make people who want an F-4E very happy, because the F-4E has a gun and fits more scenarios as far as DCS is concerned (we don't have a Vietnam map, but we do have PG, Syria and soon the Marianas).  The only situation I can specifically think of that calls for an F-4E though is the Syria map, and that only because the Israelis never bought any F-4 versions other than the E.  The F-4C would actually fit rather well on PG though, in the hands of the IRIAF.  They bought the C, D, and E as I recall.

You are right about Iran.  The problem with simply having the B and C is The British would be upset thhey don't get an RN or RAF Phantom and a lot of people want the F-4E.

So we're back to the same questions how many variants would a single consider doing in a single module and how many people would be interested in buying multiple versions. A lot of people think offering discounts would increase the chances of people buying more versions. The way I see it is not feasible for a single developer to do everything in one module, then I think a few modules could work.

The B, C and D could be one. The E, F and possibly G would be another, the J,N and S and the K, M, British J.  I'd hope that if we get late model Navy F-4s we get the helmet mounted sight 

 

[Fangs Out]

And SEAM modes for the sidewinder (Golf and Hotel Winders)

[Nodak]

Iran never bought any C's, they were long out of production, when they bought it was top shelf new stuff mid to late 70's.  The F-4E was late and had early teething problems.  That pictures a late block D, with no chin underneath, all C's had chins.  No C belongs on any Mid East map any where.

[DD_fruitbat]

I'd much prefer a B and C/D (flip of a coin), but an E and an N would be a close second choice.

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Nodak said:

Iran never bought any C's, they were long out of production, when they bought it was top shelf new stuff mid to late 70's.  The F-4E was late and had early teething problems.  That pictures a late block D, with no chin underneath, all C's had chins.  No C belongs on any Mid East map any where.

Yes that is a D

4 hours ago, DD_fruitbat said:

I'd much prefer a B and C/D (flip of a coin), but an E and an N would be a close second choice.

If I had to pick between the C and D it would have to be the D. 

[Northstar98]

As I've said before, I think the best Phantom variants that will please the majority of people are the F-4E (block 53 or later) and the F-4J/F-4S.

 

The F-4E was the most prolific and most produced Phantom, and a 70s variant would fit very nicely with the existing MiG-21bis, as well as replacing the god-awful LOMAC-era model.

 

The F-4J/S is a carrier capable variant, giving the navy guys something to play with.

 

 

I think those 2 variants at least are 'must haves', I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be bundled as part of the same module. Instead, do something as suggested on upyr1's thread, whereby your first variant is full price and then from there on in, subsequent variants are discounted, with how much they're discounted being on a sliding scale, depending on workload.

 

So an F-4E and an F-4J would be very different, but an F-4J and an F-4S would be much more similar.

 

So if you buy the F-4E, the F-4J/S would be more expensive as they're more divergent. But if you buy a J, then the S is much cheaper or vice versa, given that those 2 are more similar).

 

 

Of course, my favourite Phantom variants are going to be the RAF F-4M Phantom FGR.2 and the FAA/RAF F-4K Phantom FG.1, the problem here is that it's probably only British players significantly interested in them. Both are also missing quite a number of stuff to make them fit.

 

 

In any case I think sticking to Phantoms from the 70s, at least for the time being, would be the best path for the Phantom, regardless of variant.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Northstar98

[WinterH]

8 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

As I've said before, I think the best Phantom variants that will please the majority of people are the F-4E (block 53 or later) and the F-4J/F-4S.

Essentially, this.

 

Making B and C to please most people idea is way, way off the mark. With F-4, there is just no way of making most people happy without at least two very different variants, and at the very least a later E model is essential as it is the best represantative of F-4's service all over the world. And for the naval one, J and/or S are the ones that make the most sense.

[rkk01]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

As I've said before, I think the best Phantom variants that will please the majority of people are the F-4E (block 53 or later) and the F-4J/F-4S.

 

The F-4E was the most prolific and most produced Phantom, and a 70s variant would fit very nicely with the existing MiG-21bis, as well as replacing the god-awful LOMAC-era model.

 

The F-4J/S is a carrier capable variant, giving the navy guys something to play with.

 

 

I think those 2 variants at least are 'must haves', I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be bundled as part of the same module. Instead, do something as suggested on upyr1's thread, whereby your first variant is full price and then from there on in, subsequent variants are discounted, with how much they're discounted being on a sliding scale, depending on workload.

 

So an F-4E and an F-4J would be very different, but an F-4J and an F-4S would be much more similar.

 

So if you buy the F-4E, the F-4J/S would be more expensive as they're more divergent. But if you buy a J, then the S is much cheaper or vice versa, given that those 2 are more similar).

 

 

Of course, my favourite Phantom variants are going to be the RAF F-4M Phantom FGR.2 and the FAA/RAF F-4K Phantom FG.1, the problem here is that it's probably only British players significantly interested in them. Both are also missing quite a number of stuff to make them fit.

 

 

In any case I think sticking to Phantoms from the 70s, at least for the time being, would be the best path for the Phantom, regardless of variant.

 

But, as per you response on the other thread...

 

There is a map on the way for the UK Phantoms

 

 

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

But, as per you response on the other thread...

 

There is a map on the way for the UK Phantoms

 

 

Yes, however it is missing critical GCI equipment for its air defence role on the Falklands, namely the Marconi S 600 RADAR system (which I think was installed at the various RRH's on the Falklands, post-war).

[ebabil]

So wild

[upyr1]

16 hours ago, WinterH said:

Essentially, this.

 

Making B and C to please most people idea is way, way off the mark. With F-4, there is just no way of making most people happy without at least two very different variants, and at the very least a later E model is essential as it is the best represantative of F-4's service all over the world. And for the naval one, J and/or S are the ones that make the most sense.

The B and D models would be good opfor for the MiG-19, unless we get an early model Mig-21 and F-100