303_Kermit

It's no big deal. F-14 Tomcat A-B has it also (D had Electronics onboard to correct a problem). The reason of these phenomena is a lack of the airflow (or rather detached airflow) over upper part of the airfoil on High AoA. I assume that it's well known how it works. Adding a slats changed characteristics, but didn't solve a problem. To solve a problem one need Fly-by wire. F-4E biggest difference was while landing and take -off: The C & D model had the non-slotted stabs. On take off the normal procedure was to hold full back stick and go full burner. When the plane rotated, you eased off the back stick after lift off when you reached the climb attitude. On landing you usually hit full back stick just at touchdown. For in-flight maneuvering there was plenty of elevator authority, but on and near the ground, you were limited. The Air Force E model had the slotted stab with more downward lift. You could make a normal burner take off and pull back stick at take off speed. You could also land the plane normally with a flare.

Warsaw pact instrument flying is actually much easier than NATO one. There are two methods. For ARC (NDB) approach - "System" For RSBN/PRMG approach - "Box" "System" approach you may find here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M6TKQl6HQw

Start form original flight manual, cause the one in DCS is useless. Chuck is only bit better, but it's incomplete and has some errors. Plane itself is hard to fly, and it's made to fly with EWR operator support. If you're very experienced, you find it as a challenge to fly and fight. If you're beginner in DCS, you're going to have a hard time. I wish you patience, and good luck. Search for a squad flying MiG-21. Usually such guys posses detailed knowledge, experience and sources you look for. Good luck. Unfortunately there's no perfect book about MiG-21. Nobody made a book about full spectrum of MiG-21 without serious mistakes. I found also no honest book about the plane. Some books are excessivly flattering, others are overly critical - up to pure hatred to the plane itself . PS. I'd like to share with you my sources, but they're in Polish language

I shall wrote, that slats are constructed - means calculated for a specific AoA. You're catching a single words from what I write. English is not my first language. Well the point with the slats is, that Coanda effect which basically they use, needs specific parameter of airstream blowing through slat opening. Too much - and airflow won't "glue" to the upper surface. It blows it away. Too little - the same. That is why for slats - to "design" them (I hate these word), to calculate them - engineer needs a speed (usually it's a landing speed) , AoA, and of course prepared basic shape of a wing to calculate the reynolds number, because coanda effect strongly depends from it. That's what I meant. Hummingbird. The drawings are very nice ( I mean the lower ones). I wish Airflow and Aerodnymics is so simple in real life.... You see. Most of "virtual airflow sim" or "virtual wind tunnel" use simplified aerodynamics. To calculate things they use assumption that the air has no viscosity, and no compressibility. Sometimes it's enough to become some rough estimation. Not in these time. Example? Just from angle of attack on your drawings I can say that the data on it are ment to describe Cl/AoA for Airfoil (with and without slat) - not for a wing. Because a shape of a wing makes the curves more "flat". Some wings has 25° critical AoA without slats. Others needs slats to rich such AoA. They both may even have the same airfoil, but work on different reynolds number. Anyway... you asked why STRT is better with slats and I gave you explanation. Probably it's not as simple one as you may expect. CL/CD Chart - the one above, "Maximum Thrust - Combat configuration..." is interesting. With some additional data, one may use it to approximate STRT. Means, one may check if the chart CL/CD suits STRT chart. Some simplifications are needed, like a constant thrust in all speeds and AoA, or constant weight of a plane. Also as always in Aerodynamics it's necessary to calculate an error, but there are the ways to check if both data - CL/CD and STRT/TAS suit together. With my best regards 303_Kermit

I remember it was mentioned on "Plane Construction" workshops as curiosity. I can check my old pdf. ... some of them are 25 years old It's a trip down memory lane for me. Anyway. maybe i didn't stated it clear enough - The phenomena lowers the drag. There are couple old cars with rubbish bodywork, but in spite of it - good Cx was archived, the reason was the same. I thought that connection between STRT and the Phenomena I described is quite easy to understand

I'm trying you to explain that slats in Phantom caused a Phenomena i described. It wasn't a original purpose of engineers - it was unexpected. I can reassure you I know how slats work, I know the Coanda effect, and what's more I can calculate a proper size of a slat opening, and other parameters necessary to construct a slated wing. I know that slats work only for some designed speed and angle of attack. The thing you can't understand is, that Phenomena I described was a byproduct - unexpected surprise for engineers. I'm not trying you to explain how slats work, because I expect you to know such basics. I assume that people here knows what Wikipedia is and I expect that very basic understanding of fluid mechanic is possessed. I'm explaining only things you won't find in Wiki. With my best regards 303_Kermit PS No slats can add you +25° to critical AoA. You went bit to far.

Ok I try to explain . Sorry for putting crappy paintings, but I couldn't find anything more elegant in Internet. Sorry. Now One photo says 1000 words right? Lets try that. Two cases. First - Phantom without slats. No comments needed i think. Second - static Vortex. Consumes very little amount of energy from the airstream, under some conditions it works as a "Extra airfoil" - in simple words the airflow behaves like it's flowing around much bigger , thicker profile. The phenomena is stable, but appears and disappears quite rapidly. That is why you get STRT improvement.

"Thrust-limited turning performance" See there's the difference . For some of you turning performance is TRT+Cornering speed. In real life there's much more. One of the parameter is stability, next is lower vibrations (in Phantom very real problem), and there are much more. See also they mentioned "thrust limited" they didn't pusch it to the limits. TRT and cornering speed wasn't a subject of test... Probably. If I see rapport there is a chance I find some things you can't see in it. Other case is, that when I use a word "Vortex " some of you think about Mirage or any other delta. It's not that "Vortex". The Vortex I mentioned has much to do with the slats. It also explains why in Phantom on high AoA smoke (if there is one) travels from trailing edge to the leading edge. As I mentioned Phantom is very specific plane. Slats can give you couple (3°-4°) extra AoA, they give some Cl (not as much in case of swept leading edge) but in case of Phantom there's more into it. Slats came to make Phantom a little bit less difficult to fly. Phantom could turn quite well with or without them, but he was even more difficult to fly than MiG-21. Adverse Yaw, buffeting, stick light when going subsonic from supersonic - name the problem, and be sure in some point Phantom has it. You can't explain Phantom just by sentence "yep - slats gave F-4 more maneuverability". It's huge underestimation. Go trough "Aircrew interview" channel there are at least 4 (maybe more) interviews with Phantoms Pilots. They all say how hard it was to push Phantom up to his limits. Charts are necessary of course, but you're scratching just the top of the iceberg not knowing that there's much more underwater. It's like that. Phantom isn't a flying brick, but it's a "pilots" plane. God damn difficult to fly. It's not the F-16, he won't fly alone, you have to work hard for success. The point is not how high TRT Phantom may archive. The point is how long can you sustain a stable turn at corner speed without loosing control, or falling outside parameters. That is why slats came to Phantom

Aerodnymics of Phantom is much more complicated. It's not the slats you shall concentrate on, but static vortex (I'm not sure about correct English name) - Very unique aerodynamic phenomena that appears on F-4 Phantom wing at certain AoA. That's the reason of very special characteristics. not the slats

Not exactly true. First Phantom posses a Wing with swept leading edge but it isn't called a "swept" wing. I've met with expressions like "cropped delta" and others, but to be honest - the solution was never used before or after. Phantom is unique. If you want to learn something about low speed (subsonic) aerodynamics (in very simple language) I suggest a book made by eng. Roskam "Airplane design part III: Layout design of ...." Page 177, chapter "Effect of sweep on lift curve slope". For other aerodynamic literature i'm afraid there's higher mathematics needed (transformations opposite to la place transformations for a start) Unfortunately drag Isn't so simple as lift. First... because constants from Bernoulli equation aren't actually constant. Drag coefficient (in these case) depends on speed, humidity, and other factors. Drag force is even more complicated. Today we used to use CFD for such cases, but it's not always correct. Anyway - Drag of Swept wing has different nature in both cases (swept vs straight) true, but in straight wing slats work better - they're (much) more efficient. Swept wing makes many things more complicated. In subsonic speeds they give almost no advantage. My Professor used to say "if swept leading edge would be so brilliant in low speed airflow, Spitfire would have one". There is a reason why Phantom II was nicknamed "the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics." That was surprising 70 years ago. Reason is actually quite simple. You may find even videos on YT with explanation. Rubbish. In almost every sentence. 1. Slats never decrease drag, they usually improve Cd/Cl ratio. 2. Slats used to work in laminar part of the flow. The point of changing the flow from laminar to turbulent may be actually calculated from the only known case of solution of Navier-Stockes equation (all other solutions are unknown). Usually it's first subject of Fluid Mechanics laboratory. 3-rd semester in my University. Back to the slats - Airflow through slats is usually laminar, true. It doesn't mean though, that the drag is lower. You're just changing one kind of drag to other ("friction drag" to "shape drag") usually (in these case ) summary drag is even bigger. With my best regards master engineer 303_Kermit

The Upper chart (sustained G turn) show 15,25°/s TRT at sea lvl by 575KCAS - the lower one (F-4E with slats vs F-4E without) - 20°/s at sea lvl by Ma=0,6. It's strange from 2 reasons: 1-st the difference is huge 2-nd Slats add Lift, but also a Drag - and a lot of it. Everyone who enjoyed a aerobatic in a plane with a slats on it may confirm - if slats jumped out at the beginning of the loop - the feeling is like someone pulled a handbrake - you won't make full loop. I'm sure that slats help a lot by instantaneous turn, but in a constant turn they bring no profit. It make only sense if the lower chart (F-4E with slats vs F-4E without slats) shows instantaneous turn capabilities. With my best regards 303_Kermit

Q: What variants will the Heatblur F-4 Phantom include? A: The first release will be DCS: F-4E, the iconic land based variant of the Phantom. We will be launching two variants of the -E; a “classic era” F-4E (blocks 36-45 with updates retrofitted in 1974 and before, including new slats, DSCG and AGM-65) as well as an upgraded (DMAS) version of the aircraft in one package. So it will be a post Vietnam Phantom

As Far as I recall there are going to be 2 variants of F-4E (God bless Heatblur) - Classic Vietnam Era and Late. That may be a hint

Same here. I fly MiG-21 and don't get me wrong - I still love the plane, but F-4 blows my mind. I kinda liked all the planes in DCS buy i never felt that's the one - that is MY PLANE... Now I know what I've been waiting for.

23mm with 172g bullet from NS -23 gives 47,900 J Kinetic Energy; 2,8g HE + 3,3g incediary 37mm HEI-T from N37 (~500g bullet mass) gives about 80 000 J Kinetic Energy, Conventional HEI-T shell filled with 37g of HEI, self-destruction nose fuzes A-37, A-37U or B-37 fitted Maybe 10x more explosives is the reason why it has 10x bigger explosive power? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stop being lazy. Data are available in internet. Instead of writing "I think..." actually start thinking. Instead of typing "In my opinion ... " build opinion on available sources. Source: http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_37mm.html http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_25mm.html With my best regards Kermit

No but you may support these topic please do!

Radar warm up procedure takes 5 minutes. Eather in STBY or ON It's 5 minutes son!

It's definitely not that powerful in practice. I never took down a F86 With single 37mm hit. In real combat practice it was enough to take down even bigger planes. I'm not computer programming geek, but I just know that 37mm is a rubbish. Lot of noise - nothing in trousers.

If you post something like that it's necessary to compare with some real guncams. It seems for you to large? fine for me it's not, and for someone else it's strange that actually you can't kill M113. All you can take down is a truck. Did you know about i? It's not even precise test or comparsion with some simillar gun. It's rubbish. US Air forces in the '70 made tests of a captured Lim-5bis (MiG-17F Polish production). There were a tests of 23mm and 37mm cannons. See for yourself It's a 0,5kg bullet. I don't know amount of explosive, but even if it's as little as 40g please be aware that's more as it is in hand granade. It's a big bullet.

May I ask for your source? In internet it's hard to even find precise weight of bullet (about ~0,5kg). I would understand 300 grams . 40 grams is a bit ... Small amount. You must also be aware that there's several 37mm shells in Russian army, and the other one is totally different type of ammunition, with more propellant. Also currently 37mm seems only doing some flash effects without any damage

Not only that - RR engines are wider, so a tail section had to be rebuilt. So RAF posesses the most powerfull and... the slowest Phantoms of all kind source:

As we may see - it probably depends on many things. Throttle setting, altitude, engine type. On the video in YT there's a lot of smokeless F-4E as well as the one living quite a trail PS - The ones on the foto aren't actually F-4E PS2: Do you know that F-4E possess the world only supersonic (Ma=1,2) gun kill?

I'll sell my liver... Edit: For a USN Phantom I'd like to sell you miss Piggy

I'd rather vote R2D2... Cockpit looks like the one in in X-Fighter , and there's more electronic around... Es for nicknames for WSO / RIO here is something useful https://aviationhumor.net/the-100-most-creative-pilot-callsigns-with-explanations/ For WSO I Like ALF - Annoying little F*** and ECM - Enlisted Chick Magnet For NAVY - FORD – Found On Road Dead. After a mission, had a few drinks (it suites a sailor, isn't it?)

Thank you very much.