Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As mentioned by Quid, the -1 performance manual indicates that the slatted F-4E with 4x AIM-7Es can technically pass Mach 2 - if just barely around 36,000'. But technicalities this subtle aren't seen in practice especially since this was never really a configuration that was flown with. With all 8 missiles, or similar loadouts, the slatted F-4E would not pass Mach 2. It was obvious the previous version was faster, could fly higher and climbed better but that's the trade off for much better handling and turning capabilities. This explains why the quoted excerpt by Kermit states the less than Mach 2 performance. It would be interesting to see a version without slats like an F-4J so we get two very different kinds of F-4 which we would fly very differently for BFM.
  2. This would be a mighty disappointment if true... using AI RIO has completely changed the F-14 experience for me
  3. But if you never watch them, how do you know they're inaccurate?? Jokes aside, I was excited to have seen a new video about our phabulous Phantom but then there was so much wrong with the video. It's one thing to miss some information but somehow he filled those missing gaps with just random, made up script. Where did he get this information from? I've seen his MiG-31 video and another plane and both others were filled with incorrect "facts". Adding to the giant list above, he also mentions that the Army called the F-4 the F-110 but it was the air force. And almost nothing was mentioned again about the USAF save for a 5 second line about Handley's supersonic gun kill. No shade on you though, OP. If you want a recent video about the F-4 of better quality, there's this one from the Wings over the Rockies museum in Colorado:
  4. Thank you again for these improvements! I'm very excited to try using the AIM-54C again.
  5. The good thing about the D model is that there were so many subvariants just like many other F-4's. Some versions had no chin pod, many did not have the ARN-101, etc. It might be possible to model a version that has all its information available.
  6. Thank you diesel thunder! I watched this yesterday and I'm so incredibly jealous of the work you get to do. Excited to see more of this as we get closer to the module's release.
  7. I somewhat agree, I only chose A2A kills because it's what I mostly remembered off the top of my head. However it's still a part of combat action so it can't be ignored. And if you take the sorties flown, tonnage dropped, weapons fired, A2G kills etc., the F-4D/E still take the cake so they have seen more combat than their navy counterparts by almost every definition. I'm sure the day will be sweet when the F-4B/J will fly along side the E and we can simulate Navy-AF rivalry in real time online As for the F-14A-GR-95, I was under the impression that HB explicitly said that the F-4E would not take resources away and that their development went hand in hand.
  8. So much salt these days (I sort of get it because I'm about to let loose my own salt bags)... we get you prefer something else, that's fine and the USN birds are great. But you don't really have to poop on everyone else's parade just because you're not getting exactly what you want as if its an affront to civilized society. But screw it, this is annoying, I'm projecting and I don't care so I'll bite. Here are some facts: F-4B kills: 12 confirmed during the Vietnam War. Flown by the US. F-4J kills: 20 confirmed during the Vietnam War. Flown by the US and UK Awesome stuff, worthy aircraft. However: F-4D: 45 kills confirmed during the Vietnam War. Further unknown amount with Iran. Flown by the US, Spain, Iran, RoK (South Korea). F-4E: 23 kills confirmed during the Vietnam War. 116 or so confirmed kills during the War of Attrition, October/Yom Kippur War and 1982 Lebanon War.. Further unknown amount with Iran. Flown US, Israel, Iran, RoK (South Korea), Greece, Turkey. Most numerous version made. Counterarguments: 1) Keep in mind not everyone on DCS is from the US. The F-4E was the original/only model for a lot of these countries. If this isn't war-proven, I don't know what is. 2) Just because it can drop LGB's somehow makes it the same experience as an F-16CJ? Go fly Korea or WW2 if you want something completely different. The Vietnam jets are inherently going to be more like modern jets than those planes. An honest look at the F-4E's smart weapon capabilities shows that it is literally the in-between evolutionary step in weapons employment between the Korean-war era jets and the modern whizz-bang auto tracking targeting system-equipped modern fighters. That's an untouched sector in flight simulation. The F-4B delivery systems were almost the same from the end-user perspective as the F-86's, MiG-21bis or F-5's we have now... New experiences, you said? 3) If you want the original for immersion, I get it. I'd prefer a 1980s F-15A instead of the F-15E but it just makes sense that a version more countries have flown is being made. It appeals to more people and can always be restricted in many ways. You can't upgrade a variant in the game.. So take one second and see above why the F-4E makes sense. It's not the RIGHT choice, it's just a logical one. The F-4B, J and S are also cool choices and they're not wrong but you have to be fooling yourself if you don't see the merit as to why the E was chosen first. The saddest part is that the Navy versions are planned and people will STILL be unhappy. Rant over. Have at me.
  9. I see what you're getting at, but the original statement is not quite right: that moving water from a larger pipe to a smaller one builds pressure and that compressing it speeds it up. These two things cannot happen at the same time. Either flow is supersonic and it slows down through a restriction and builds pressure (usually nonisentropically across shocks) or flow is subsonic and speeds up and lowers pressure through a restriction.
  10. No, increasing the speed of the flow decreases its static pressure. When we say compressed here, it means "increase static pressure", not necessarily "squeeze the flow geometry in the duct (i.e. decrease duct cross section)". In any case, for subsonic flow, decreasing the cross section of the pipe will increase velocity and the static pressure decreases; it does not build. The same geometry will slow down supersonic flow. That's why we use diverging nozzles when the flow is supersonic to speed up that flow more but that's another topic. For compression, think of the problem backwards. Say you have a tank of compressed air. There is no velocity and the static pressure of the air inside is at its highest. If you open it up to the atmosphere, or a pipe/duct with lower pressure, the air will escape due to the pressure gradient and will attain velocity at the opening to the duct and onward. The static pressure drops across the place where flow accelerates and is "converted" to dynamic pressure (q = 0.5*density*v^2). The total pressure (ignoring friction and viscosity) is the same as what the static pressure was in the tank when it was closed because total pressure is the sum of static and dynamic pressure. Now when you have supersonic flow across the Phantom's intake ramps, for example, the ramps deflect the air away, creating shocks which slow down the flow. Some of that dynamic pressure is being recovered back to static pressure, hence the air is being compressed.
  11. The Rivet Haste birds that saw combat in Vietnam between Nov 1972 and Jan 73 (the "new" 555th TFS) had TISEO before DMAS was a thing. There were a few Israeli Phantoms during the Yom Kippur War on Oct 73 that also had TISEO, most if not all of them were Nickel Grass jets. None of these had DMAS.
  12. The F-4E saw very limited use. 3rd TFW from Clark AFB in the Philippines went over to Turkey to support Desert Storm. The F-4G was the main Phantom to see combat there.
  13. This hit the nail on the head. If someone wants to make theoretical scenarios, which are lots of fun as well, then that wouldn't really make one plane more relevant than the other and it becomes nonsensical to state that one version fits a theoretical, fictional scenario more than another.
  14. We all have our preferred metrics for how an aircraft variant "should" be chosen. The bottom line is the variant chosen is what would probably bring in the most popularity and it stands to reason that's the E. You have specific scenarios where the F-4S just fits and that's fine but you're creating a double standard here because the F-4E as mentioned many times actually fits more scenarios, has seen more service with more countries than any other variant. It has made the most aces and logically has affected more people than any other variant (and no, I'm not even talking about the the F-4F ICE, F-4EJ kai or Terminator etc). I want to make the distinction here that this is not why the F-4E should be chosen, but rather why it's a good reason with merit as to why it would be a logical choice. This leaves the door open for the F-4S as also another logical choice based on the reasons you mentioned. The F-4S is an amazing jet and I would not complain if that ended up coming first but the problem i have with the general flavour of your posts is this: I'm not sure why the very specific US-only version of an 80s time frame aircraft that fit a very limited doctrine or the fact that it was the best US Phantom is any more valid than the F-4E's global-scale history. More generally... your reason for stating the F-4S should be chosen is not any more valid than the other arguments given for the F-4E. I personally have no issue with why you like it so much and I understand why YOU want it more, but if you can find a minute to maybe also be empathetic to all the other arguments in favour of the F-4E and just appreciate these arguments (note that this doesn't mean agreeing) rather than ignoring them, implying the F-4E is just the wrong choice and being like "NO.. why F-4E? What is it good for?" Etc...
  15. I'd really like if there will be a late-build J in the future. This way we would have two different flavours of the Phantom but also contemporary versions that would have seen combat around the same time. Without the slats, the J would would have much better speed, high end acceleration and climb but it would lack the maneuverability that the E will have. The PD radar would be interesting as well. It would be carrier-capable and also would be accurate as an RAF bird.
  • Create New...