303_Kermit

You won't be a challenge you'll become a practice target. Me262 isn't a bomber, and surely unarmed recon is not a reason to buy a module. The other problem is, that there's no recon implemented in DCS. P-38! B-17! B-24!

Huey! + "Jumping jack flash" in a loop

I would be very cautious with Israeli combat reports. They're seriously confusing. I do believe it's on purpose. Nothing strange about it to be honest. There are full of stories, when you never know what plane pilot flew. You may only assume or suppose, that it's Phantom, because pilot once says "we" and on the other time during the same story says "me". Glory to the Kheil HaAvir, but they're not quite... Most reliable source of information. They're rather a source of various MiG-parts. F-4J has Pulse doppler radar. Navy had much better device since they resigned from M-61A1 Vulcan in the nose. That's why, without gun in the nose their radar has bigger antenna and it's a quite different device, than USAF F-4E Pulse radar. F4E posese a ground clutter filter. It helps detecting airborne tgts if they fly lower, but not close to the ground, by limitting and separating signals that comes back from the same direction, but after different time period. So If AGL is big enough you may detect someone who flies lower. Most cases however MK 1 Eyeball will be more effective considering detection range of APQ-120 I'm amazed by something another. 9:57 "There was a water in Datalink compartment". F-4J had datalink on board? My best regards Kermit

I love these plane

Agree. Just to complement: TPQ System was extensively used in Vietnam , especially during rain season. It allowed to attack targets in north Vietnam in spite of heavy cloud cover. F-4 having a Vulcan onboard had to sacrifice quite a lot of avionics. For a start Navy had bigger radar antenna, also IR sensor is not present in USAF planes (not that it's a big lost). As for Navy: F-4J was first fighter in the world with look down /shoot down capabilities There's more about it, but somehow I assume you know quite well about it. My best regards Kermit

"The General Electric AN/TPQ-1O Course Directing Central was a light-weight, two-unit, helicopter transportable, ground based bombing system developed for use by the United States Marine Corps to provide highly accurate, day/night all weather close air support. This self-contained system was designed to guide an aircraft, equipped with the proper control equipment, to a release point for accurate all-weather delivery of ordnance and supplies to a preselected target. The AN/TPQ-10 and its operators were known as an ‘’Air Support Radar Team’’ (ASRT) and were employed by the Marine Air Support Squadrons within the Aviation Combat Element." by Wikipedia (eng.)

Different 8 (thicker and wider) tyres, stiff, thicker wings. Rear cockpit has side consoles (Navy has not). J79GE-8 vs GE-15 , AN/APQ-99 vs 100, also US Navy had a device that allowed them to bomb targets through cloud cover. It included TPQ-10 ground radar, ballistic computer, and reciver device onboard Phantom II / Intruder / "Hump" equipped Skyhawk E/F and later also A-7

I wanted to write "No wonder they flew over 20 000 combat sorties", but then I checked that F-100 did 360 000 combat sorties. So... Was it because of high alt profile of 105's flights? Or because F-105's made in Vietnam mostly A2G sorties without AiM-9 under wings? “I manoeuvred to superimpose my pitot boom over the MiG, squeezed the trigger and saw the 20 mm rounds sparkling along the left fuselage and wing root of the MiG. His left wing folded over the tail and in an abrupt left turn he went into a cloud at about 2500 ft"

USN Phantoms IMO are prettiest planes of all times

I'd like you to show me how you make sandwich before engagement. There are couple way to cooperate in dogfight. There are a certain rules for it - it helps a little. Having a "Game plan" certainly helps. Defining Hot-cold directions before T/O, short and precise communication, mostly - it's a lot of flight hours spent online - not offline with your squad mates.

Not nearly as frustrating as early F-105 armed with early M-61 Vulcan. Usually jamming after about 200 rounds. Pilots used to use a pitot tube to aim.

After I read Bill Gunston "F-4 Phantom" I want F-4B more than any other plane!

I think the proper book to answer that question is only flight manual of P-4E (proper prod. series). There are usually a lot of such information. I'm sure Heatblure posses all the necessary info. I ordered also bill gunston's monography about F-4. I'll post as soon as I found something new. I'm not the only one crazy about F-4... Good to hear With my best regards Kermit

F4 Phantom II vs MiG-21 USAF and VPAF in The Vietnam War Peter Davies. About F4E (Vietnam) "(...)In addition to a nose mounted gun, the aircraft had J79-GE-17C engines, uprated to 17900LBS maximum thrust. However like previous 79's the engines still emitted thick black smoke trail except of afterburner. These made the aircraft visible for up to 30 miles. Fixes were developed, but never implemented during the war. The new nose was adopted following the pitment of the lighter more compact AN/APQ-120 solid state radar and antenna which was heavily insulated against gunfire vibration. [...]RAT and wing folding mechanisms were removed (I quote, but kill me If I understand) "Although, the slats and the extra weight of the gun and number 7 fuel tank reduced maximum speed to below Ma = 2 crews welcomed the new wing configuration, as it made the Phantom 2 almost spin proof." [...] (and) Finally (in?) F-4J increased control effectiveness. " (It was also placed in chapter about F-4E) "the F4 radar was very difficult to use in its standard mode. we had serious problems getting a radar lock on a maneuvering tgt., that then it allowed a missile to be launched. As a solution to our issues with the APQ-72, the radars in our jets were modified so that with a flick of a switch they could be slaved in azimuth and elevation to the nose of the aircraft, creating a narrow , forward pointing beam." (Crews called it BORESIGHT mode) "The B/C/D F4 radios were often criticized. In designing the AN/ARC-105KF radio, Collins radio corporation struggled with electromagnetic interference and placement of antennas, particularly in aircraft tail. During maneuvering flight the tail mounted antenna may be blocked by the airframe, interrupting transmissions. In the F4, rain leaking into the cockpit was channeled directly to the radio and access to it or its battery. " Most statements comes from pilots quotations. The book itself I would say is a bit... Hurray - USA ? With my best regards Kermit

Offense not taken. Thanks for info. English is not my first language. As for further text . Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't going to convince you , that "bis" is the same plane as F-13 or PF(M). I just pointed, that with some imagination you may create such scenario. Remove gun ammo, give RS-2US and R-3S, disable additional pylons and you have something similar to PF. It is in no way identical to PF, but it's best we have. It's some sensible adjustment.

There's only one way to prove you wrong. Do you fly Enigma? I'll be glad to show you what is a sandwich, pincer movement in rolls dice variant, or grinder You'll probably change your mind.

Why there's no "C" ? Also multiple choices poll would be more adequate. I would vote for B,C,D,E,J,G Do you know that F-4E (Vietnam war type) wasn't able to reach Ma=2 ? Was slower than MiG-21 just like British variants... most powerful and slowest Phantoms

Did I hit a weak spot of F-16 geek? You make my day. Thanks. True... MiG 21 is so easy to fly, that almost every video "First time on MiG-21" starts from crash - usual on both: takeoff and landing Also videos about RSBN approach are quite... Amusing. Yes no brainer it is. As far as I read about F-4E, the earliest variants are being mentioned in Vietnam since 1968. F-4E was upgraded multiple times. Engines (early ones were smoking badly) radio, radio-navigation systems. All true, but it's also true (according of Heatblur declaration) That they are going to introduce 2 variants of F-4E clasic and late. Also they are going to give us a F-4 family, so there's hope for B,C,D, J ... all served in Vietnam As for MiG-21. In Vietnam served MiG-21 in Variants: F-13, PFL(?), PFM, (M?), MF (those are most popular) We have none of them in DCS Right? Well.... not quite. Bis was one of first official mods to DCS. Therefore it was assumed, that she has to fulfill a full spectrum of Mikoyan fighters. The first example of these idea are missiles carried by bis in DCS. No MiG-21 bis could ever carry RS-2US. The reason is incompatible radar. For RS-2US you need radar from PF/PFM. Placing those early missiles on bis (R-55, RS-2US, R-3S) was in purpose of allowing to simulate some early cold war scenarios. The biggest advantage of bis is of course EPR, but surprisingly basic performances of MiG-21 stayed the same from F-13 to bis. Speed and time of climb to maximum altitude. As for Vietnam map - That's the last true air-war in History. After that enemy air forces used to be annihilated in 12-24 hours. 3'rd World War never started (thank you Allah, Yehowa, Christ, Zeus, Odin) so "Fulda Gap" was never an arena of air combat operations. Anyway... Fulda gap is more a subject for Tank-Sim enthusiasts than DCS. With my best respect to all fans of F-4, MiG-21 & all those interested in Vietnam War history, and Vietnam Map for DCS Kermit

Proper alignment is realized per data link between a pair of Su-27 before lunch... And to be honest I'm sure I saw it multiple times on various sources, including Wikipedia, and Bill Gunston articles, but I'm unable to give you a reliable source of these information right now. I may search if someone's interested... I realize that for DCS one need more details to change anything. I just want to point here that it is possible... From quite a long time already. Other thing is that PESA/AESA arrays use more sophisticated methods to avoid interferency. Someone tried to explain it to me once, but I fell asleep in the middle... With my eyes opened

As much as I want to agree... WTF are you talking about? How Fox -1 can be ever equal to Fox-3? It's not the same and it won't be unless ED introuces full potential of R-27 and Su27. Originally R-27ER can be guided by a radar of other plane. I other words: You may fly low to be safe. You may prepare yourself for "notch" or "crank", do STT a target, and your wingman can lunch R-27ER for it in stratosphere, being accelerated to Ma=1,6. Theres no such thing in DCS as far as I can tell. Otherwise SATAL would be finaly very interesting... For once. In DCS only equal plane for F-16 is F-16... I have it uninstalled. Waiting for better times ... On Enigma With my best regards Green Ugly Fellow

All true. I'm reading "F-105 vs MiG-17 over Vietnam". I was amazed, by pilots complaining that... "M-61 Vulcan is too acurate. You may shoot out a single piece of enemy plane. By A2G we used to wave a pedals to create some dispersion"

True. But they weren't able to satisfy ED. Anyway... Who would fly F8F against MiG-15? I seriously doubt.

hic acurem aqua, hic aqua revertitur. With my best respect

Probably the reason for my hysteria is because It is a Phantom.... I wait for it since i'm 12 and I played F16 Fighting Falcon on C64.... I waited so long. I hope he will be perfect. So I can uninstall all other modules (except of UH-1)

Church is a place to "belive". Not aerodynamics. Here is a nice article and film about how the vortexes I talk about are created. There's an airfoil moving up and down, and of course it's about Karmans vortex: https://fyfluiddynamics.com/2015/10/flow-visualization-can-be-a-valuable-tool-for/?doing_wp_cron=1654384116.9519119262695312500000 By high AoA the vortexes are created. On the film you may see Vortexes building up on upper (and lower) surface and sliding down along the airfoil. They are not "static"- so they're not the one I wrote about. The Vortex I'm talking about is more complicated. Another example here. https://www.iahrmedialibrary.net/the-library/methods-in-hydraulics/fluid-mechanics/flow-induced-vibrations-karman-vortex/270 There's more about it in NACA reports, I'll try to find something more precise soon. Here is another visualization of Vortex - also not static. but it gives a good idea what I'm talking about Please pay attention, that in spite of having laminar flow on the upper surface, the airflow is far from nice pictures you're all accustomed to. Here are 2 traces of static vortex 2:33 the vortex builds in the corner , is barely visible, and the flow is in different direction ,but that is actually static vortex. It'looks like that: https://www.iahrmedialibrary.net/the-library/methods-in-hydraulics/fluid-mechanics/flow-separation/272 Here is also example of Static vortex, but it's just a foto: These vortex is very small. But it's the same principle. It makes the shape of a solid (here's a car) more "aerodynamic" . Vortex itself consumes very little energy from the flow, and works positive. These vortexes may build up also on the trailing part of the flow and they usually lower the drag. The Vortex on Phantom was huge, and grows bigger after flaps were extended. I shall search for films of Phantoms in foggy or rain conditions - it may create a visualisation sometimes. One more thing. These time no vortexes. Look how the flow of fluid (the air is also a fluid in aerodynamic sense) changes only because of different speed. Thats Reynolds number. If you're inpatient move to 4:30 and enjoy. https://www.iahrmedialibrary.net/the-library/methods-in-hydraulics/fluid-mechanics/stratified-flow/939 I'm not saying that charts presented above are fake or incorrect. I'm trying to say, that interpretations of them, and possible connection(s) between STRT and Slats are beyond subjects possible for you to determine here. Not because you're not intelligent, but because you need far more data to definitely answer the question. And in first case, you don't even know what data you need to be able to specify a full and correct answer, because it's far more complicated than you think. With my best regards 303_Kermit PS. @Hummingbird I may provide more information in any subject connected to fluid mechanic and aerodynamic, but I'd like to make it on prv. I'm not sure if everything I have I can legally publish. I'm terribly sorry