F4 PHANTOM

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, TLTeo said:

The Spey engines also required the fuselage to be re-shaped, which broke the area ruling slightly compared to the J79 jets. That limited the top speed at altitude, but it made the aircraft perform a bit better at low altitude (hence the British Phantoms being nicknamed the most expensive, slowest Phantoms ever built). Between that and the different performance of the new engines, you're looking at pretty large differences in the FM - larger than the A and B model Tomcat for example.

I knew they were slower but I wasn't sure if it was a power or shape issue. 

9 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Yeah I don't really see the need to have an -F in game. You can easily just take an -E, keep it from loading Sparrows in the Mission Editor, and be close enough. Personally I'd hate to have one of these modernized Phantoms though, if I want an AMRAAM truck I'll just fly something else instead...although I'm sure the airquake muh capabilities crowd will be horrified.

The F is simple editing the LAU for the payload and a German cockpit livery, so it wouldn't be hard to do. As for the Phantom 2K type birds it might be interesting but let's face it I want the Phantom from the Vietnam to Desert Storm era. So it isn't a priority

9 hours ago, TLTeo said:

The F-4E replaced the Century Series, it doesn't really need to operate together with them. Between the Mirage F1, F-5E, Mig-21 and -23 we will have plenty of aircraft that were operated in the same time period tbh.

They did overlap some, the F-105 was in service until 1984 and the F-106 in service until 1988 I beleive both the F-100 and F-102 left service in the late 1970s though I believe they were all ANG.

9 hours ago, TLTeo said:

As far as I understand, USN Phantoms didn't operate with gunpods much, especially not for air to air. They were mostly used by the USMC and USAF for a2g (and in the case of the USAF, the a2a thing was only until the -E came online). Having said that the best dogfighting Phantom is supposed to be a USN -S, but even then, I would prepare to be underwhelmed. Regardless of variants it will be a pretty tough aircraft to fly in BFM/ACM, at least if you're used to a Hornet, Viper or Tomcat, because you won't out turn (almost) anything, you will really really need to know how to use the vertical and how to unload, extend and re-engage.

the challenge will be part of the fun

On 9/6/2021 at 8:39 PM, Kazansky222 said:

I really hope they do an early version of the F-4 and then a later variant afterwards.

I hope so too, I'm worried that we will only have the E and J. 

[Rick50]

20 hours ago, ustio said:

just wondering. Is the navy phantom with its draggy Gunpods still a better dogfighter compare to the E because of the CG placement? I assume because of the gun is place at the nose would make it less maneuverable ?

 

well... I don't "know" for absolute. But... CG is important for all airplanes, and fighters. So yes, the gun and it's ammo in the nose does put a lot of weight there, but I seem to remember something about a change to weight in the aft region to balance the weight... fuel tank:

 

Quote

A seventh fuel cell in the tail above the engine nozzles

http://www.airvectors.net/avf4_1.html#m6

 

 

I don't think the CG would be a real issue, but the two new weights up front and at the tail, would likely slow down initial pitch inertia, especially while pulling G's. On the other hand, the internal E would probably be "sliperyer" aerodynamically than a big fat pod slung underneath... and neither is gonna be a hardcore dogfighter, because a flying anvil is still an anvil !! Navy might be a little more "pointable" even with the pod, and the E might be a little less draggy and that might give a slight edge in "dive extend away" a little better...?  Might be splitting hairs here, with very minor differences, might not even notice sometimes, in the heat of a fight.

 

 

20 hours ago, ustio said:

just wondering. Is the navy phantom with its draggy Gunpods still a better dogfighter compare to the E because of the CG placement? I assume because of the gun is place at the nose would make it less maneuverable ?

 

well... I don't "know" for absolute. But... CG is important for all airplanes, and fighters. So yes, the gun and it's ammo in the nose does put a lot of weight there, but I seem to remember something about a change to weight in the aft region to balance the weight... fuel tank:

 

Quote

A seventh fuel cell in the tail above the engine nozzles

http://www.airvectors.net/avf4_1.html#m6

 

 

I don't think the CG would be a real issue, but the two new weights up front and at the tail, would likely slow down initial pitch inertia, especially while pulling G's. On the other hand, the internal E would probably be "sliperyer" aerodynamically than a big fat pod slung underneath... and neither is gonna be a hardcore dogfighter, because a flying anvil is still an anvil !! Navy might be a little more "pointable" even with the pod, and the E might be a little less draggy and that might give a slight edge in "dive extend away" a little better...?  Might be splitting hairs here, with very minor differences, might not even notice sometimes, in the heat of a fight.

 

 

[nighthawk2174]

54 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

I don't think the CG would be a real issue, but the two new weights up front and at the tail, would likely slow down initial pitch inertia, especially while pulling G's. On the other hand, the internal E would probably be "sliperyer" aerodynamically than a big fat pod slung underneath... and neither is gonna be a hardcore dogfighter, because a flying anvil is still an anvil !! Navy might be a little more "pointable" even with the pod, and the E might be a little less draggy and that might give a slight edge in "dive extend away" a little better...?  Might be splitting hairs here, with very minor differences, might not even notice sometimes, in the heat of a fight.

tbf from the charts we have the F4 had a peak rate advantage over its adversaries of at least a few deg/s.  Including a climb rate and acceleration advantage at most altitudes as well.  You can't fight it like say a mirage or F18 (flight model issues with both jets aside).  Its far more like an F16/F15 where you need to fight differently to really shine. Its issue lies at low speeds its wing (B/C/D in particular) design does not allow it to float like the delta on the 21 does.  And something I've noticed is that most new people I see (and from descriptions of engagements from some reports available online this hold true irl) when BFM'ing just yank on the stick really hard often at the wrong time.  The mig can fight this way the F4 can't.  And this as far as i'm aware holds up irl even, with F4 aggressor pilots utterly humiliating an active duty squadron who even had some mig killers in their ranks.  The kill ratio's we saw speak volumes imo to the performance advantage the jet had over its contemporaries. The mig would gain ground as you go higher in altitude, one of the benefits of a delta.  But iirc it only matches the F4 at 30k feet or higher.  There is a whole massive thread on the Russian section with performance data from Russian manuals.  I'd need to find it again but I think their conclusions match what I have said above.

 

 

As I was saying earlier take note how the delta while having a relatively flat sustained turn rate curve it holds its performance over a much wider band than the more conventual wing designs.

F4 is at 65% internal fuel.  External load is 2028lbs

MIG21BIS is at 40% internal fuel.  External load is 460lbs

F5E is at 50% internal fuel. External load is 380lbs

[draconus]

5 hours ago, jwflowersii said:

I wouldn't agree with your assessment.  You have the F-4, A-7, F-8, Huey, Mig-21, Mig-19, Mig-17, and potentially the AH-1 Cobra.  You also have Heatblur working on an A-6 Intruder and the Forrestal.   You have almost everything you need.  The SAMs are there for the most part.

You just forgot the map part and that most of these are either newer versions than VN aircraft or WIP/planned modules.

 

btw: It's fun to talk about F-4 versions but the devs are sometimes forced to do the one they have most info and SMEs for. And it's rather newer version more probable for older frames.

Edited September 8, 2021 by draconus

[ustio]

17 minutes ago, draconus said:

 

 

btw: It's fun to talk about F-4 versions but the devs are sometimes forced to do the one they have most info and SMEs for. And it's rather newer version more probable for older frames.

 

well we do know that one of their Dev from Truegrit was an F-4F pilot

[TLTeo]

10 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

from the charts we have the F4 had a peak rate advantage over its adversaries of at least a few deg/s. 

That's actually a surprisingly good STR indeed. Do we know whether this is for a jet with or without slats?

[nighthawk2174]

23 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

That's actually a surprisingly good STR indeed. Do we know whether this is for a jet with or without slats?

With I believe.  Without drops it a bit.

[Rick50]

11 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

tbf from the charts we have the F4 had a peak rate advantage over its adversaries of at least a few deg/s.  Including a climb rate and acceleration advantage at most altitudes as well. 

 

Right... but my post was not about adversaries. It was about the slight difference between the E and Navy variants. 

[Rick50]

 

I'm curious though about the fuel states for the aircraft in the diagram: was there any explanation for why the Phantom was at 65% but the Mig-21 was at 40% ??   Was that an expected fuel state for such engagements? It makes me wonder if the Mig Bingo state would only allow an extremely short engagement time.

[nighthawk2174]

2 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

I'm curious though about the fuel states for the aircraft in the diagram: was there any explanation for why the Phantom was at 65% but the Mig-21 was at 40% ??   Was that an expected fuel state for such engagements? It makes me wonder if the Mig Bingo state would only allow an extremely short engagement time.

It's just what the charts happened to be at as far as i'm aware

[G.J.S]

On 9/7/2021 at 2:59 PM, upyr1 said:

In terms of flight models The B,C,D, J, M and K I believe would be the closest to each other there is a slight difference in weight and the M and K have different engines.

 

The J, N, S M and K I am thinking these would be the close in avionics and the biggest difference would be the engines I'd like someone to correct me if I am wrong.

 

The M & K (FGR2 & FG1), in FM terms would be quite distinct from the other J, N, S & B, C, D. Due to the engine change, the RR Spey gave faster light up/spool up times at all altitudes, and although slower at altitude - typically M1.8 - 1.9, down low the acceleration was quite something. From a start of say 350kts below 200ft, the FGR2 could reach 750kts before an accompanying US F-4 would hit 650, and 'some' UK Phantoms have 'seen' over 800kts on the deck, for , well . . . reasons.

The brute thrust available in the low level regime is quite the shock to some when first crossing swords. It gives options - things not going your way? Unload to 0g and extend rapidly, then curl back in. Or run and disappear. Want things to go your way? Make them uncomfortable then push the vertical - meat on the table. Min burner cleans up the slight (compared to most US versions!) trail left, so as to hinder a viz pick up.

Weight wise, the M & K are . . . beefy gals. But, when you "Spey" ANY animal - the ar5e gets bigger! Although not as svelte as some of her foreign sisters, she could still move Rapido!

 

[Exorcet]

18 hours ago, jwflowersii said:

I wouldn't agree with your assessment.  You have the F-4, A-7, F-8, Huey, Mig-21, Mig-19, Mig-17, and potentially the AH-1 Cobra.  You also have Heatblur working on an A-6 Intruder and the Forrestal.   You have almost everything you need.  The SAMs are there for the most part.

We're still missing the map like draconus said, but even if you're willing to overlook that, I believe the A-7 proposed was supposed to be post war, but I might be wrong. The MiG-21bis is at the very tail end of US involvement. We're missing an appropriate B-52 and the F-105 which are rather significant.

 

Anyway I'm not saying that getting an early F-4 is a bad thing, just that it doesn't necessarily make more sense than a late model F-4.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, G.J.S said:

The M & K (FGR2 & FG1), in FM terms would be quite distinct from the other J, N, S & B, C, D. Due to the engine change, the RR Spey gave faster light up/spool up times at all altitudes, and although slower at altitude - typically M1.8 - 1.9, down low the acceleration was quite something. From a start of say 350kts below 200ft, the FGR2 could reach 750kts before an accompanying US F-4 would hit 650, and 'some' UK Phantoms have 'seen' over 800kts on the deck, for , well . . . reasons.

The brute thrust available in the low level regime is quite the shock to some when first crossing swords. It gives options - things not going your way? Unload to 0g and extend rapidly, then curl back in. Or run and disappear. Want things to go your way? Make them uncomfortable then push the vertical - meat on the table. Min burner cleans up the slight (compared to most US versions!) trail left, so as to hinder a viz pick up.

Weight wise, the M & K are . . . beefy gals. But, when you "Spey" ANY animal - the ar5e gets bigger! Although not as svelte as some of her foreign sisters, she could still move Rapido!

 

So they could be their own module.

I figure we could have at least 3 then 

[potatoman530]

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, potatoman530 said:

I hope they are doing to do a few versions

[potatoman530]

I am really hoping that its heat blur with their upcoming forestall set for October 14th or something like that 

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, potatoman530 said:

I am really hoping that its heat blur with their upcoming forestall set for October 14th or something like that 

 

A phantom by them would make the most sense, though my bet would be that they'd do a navalised phantom first (an F-4S makes the most sense for their Forrestals) first.

 

That said we really need both a USAF Phantom (E being my preference) and a USN/USMC Phantom (an S or a J being my preference).

 

While my favourite Phantom II variant is the RAF F-4M Phantom FGR.2 or the F-4K Phantom FG.1, apart from the Falklands we're really missing the maps and accompanying assets to make it shine, while arguably being more of a niche variant, that (owing to how the UK works) will be exceedingly difficult to get documentation on (especially the RADAR and RWR) despite it being out of service for nearly 30 years.

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, Exorcet said:

We're still missing the map like draconus said, but even if you're willing to overlook that, I believe the A-7 proposed was supposed to be post war, but I might be wrong. The MiG-21bis is at the very tail end of US involvement. We're missing an appropriate B-52 and the F-105 which are rather significant.

 

Anyway I'm not saying that getting an early F-4 is a bad thing, just that it doesn't necessarily make more sense than a late model F-4.

I think assets are more important than the map.

[WRAITH]

Bringeeeeeeeeeeeee....

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by WRAITH

[G.J.S]

On 9/9/2021 at 11:44 AM, WRAITH said:

Bringeeeeeeeeeeeee....

 

 

 

 

 

Its not a proper Phantom if you can see forward  .

 

Turk F-4E, or Hellenic?

 

*edit: Hellenic, can just see the Bird Slicers.

Edited September 11, 2021 by G.J.S

[QuiGon]

11 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Its not a proper Phantom if you can see forward  .

 

It's also not a proper Phantom if it has MFDs

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

 

It's also not a proper Phantom if it has MFDs

Amen, brother.

[Tippis]

18 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Its not a proper Phantom if you can see forward  .

6 hours ago, QuiGon said:

It's also not a proper Phantom if it has MFDs

I mean what's even the point of putting instruments in if the pilot doesn't use them to fly?

[ju8712124822]

 I saw this video

video after 13:42 can see cockpit in F-4EJ

That not different between F-4
So can we get F-4EJ after we have F-4?

Or just F-4E with skin?

I just want to fly Japanese warbird

Zero F-86 F-4EJ F-15J 

Edited September 11, 2021 by ju8712124822

[ebabil]

On 9/9/2021 at 2:34 AM, potatoman530 said:

 

Yay!

I hope HB is doing it!