SgtPappy

Thanks for doing the work, Smyth! And a big thanks for confirming that the public only has one official F-4J plot in existence! I was trying hard to find a digital copy but it seems the only seller doesn't ship the CD version to Canada I attempted this scaling/extrapolation method last year on the slatted F-4E at SL as well and found similar results - large gains for a clean, 50% fuel slatted F-4E overlaid on my older plot below. I happened upon this in a post by John Chesire. The F-4B/C are actually pretty capable, being so darn light and very much come close to the slatted F-4E with 60% fuel and 4 Sparrows per 1F-4E-1. Per the 1F-4C-1, the F-4C (and therefore B) weight about 42300 lbs full fuel, clean and 29500 lbs operating weight (no fuel). 50% fuel clean weight would be 35900 lbs and adding 4 Sparrows and 4 AIM-9D's (estimating that their associated pylons weigh the same as the USAF ones) would be ~39140 lbs so with this plot, we can estimate the F-4B is carrying about 37% fuel. Maybe Smyth can confirm if this is from the same manual.

So the issue is that even though you can calculate the drag index in the 1F-4E-1 manual for any combination of external stores, both the weight and drag go up between the STR plots. It would be possible to ignore the 1000 lb gain between the first two STR plots in the manual and just interpolate STR as a function of drag index but you'd get some error from ignoring the weight change. However, it may be more accurate to apply this method to the F-4J plots which I still have to find (I only have a screenshot of 1 plot but I imagine there are more). The one plot I have shows 37500 lbs with a full 4x4 A2A loadout. This weight seems to be a common "control" point that a lot of the data is centered around in all three manuals (F-4C, F-4E, NATOPS F-4J). If we're lucky, there will be another plot at the same weight but maybe clean or just 4 Sparrows and then you can more accurately apply the drag index interpolation. I'll have to dig more to see if I can find the other plots. I might know a guy.

All of that data is from the TO manuals. The images attached to this post are in TO 1F-4E-1 from 1979 and are on digital pages 198 (top) and 445 (bottom). I took the max CL line from pg 198 and just used some meth math to convert it to instantaneous turn rate while both pages 198 and 445 show the same allowed structural limit line. You can see that at 42000 lbs, that the max CL line intersects the max allowed structural limit at 7.5 G (I mistakenly put 7.33 G) and it drops linearly vs speed/Mach past Mach 0.7 until it's 6 G at Mach 1.05. The blue thin and dotted lines are also sustained turn rates copied straight from the manual. There are the same corresponding plots for the hard wing/BLC F-4E in the 1-F-4C-1 TO. This data is the probably the most reliable data out there so I've used it for all my comparisons. If you've ever come across the FMS plots for the Phantom or any other plane, note that they are calculations and they do not at all match the aforementioned manuals. To answer your questions on the actual rates and how they compare, in the old F-4E vs XX aircraft thread, people have posted USN official F-4J turn data and MiG-23ML data and the F-4E performs quite favourably. To summarize, the F-4J with a 4x4 AIM-7/9 loadout needs to be almost empty on fuel (~20% fuel) to match the sustained turn performance of the slatted F-4E per the manual at 60% fuel with 4xAIM-7Es - a max STR of about 14.7 deg/s at SL. Of course because the F-4J is so light in this configuration, it has a higher structural limit, so keep that in mind. These limits will probably go out the window anyway in DCS. The MiG-23ML and MLA (which are much later, circa 1976 variants - contemporary not to our upcoming early F-4E but to the F-14A and F-15A) have a slightly better STR with wings fully forward but I understand that they are unstable there (not sure which axis) and they have very low structural limits in that configuration, which again are likely to be ignored in game if the plane doesn't break. In summary, plots are from actual USAF published manuals and in the same relative configuration, the slatted F-4E will out rate instantaneously and sustained any US hard wing F-4 by a big margin except when both are at supersonic speeds (where the turn rates drop a lot anyway). The MiG-23ML/MLA have a better max theoretical STR with wings forward but it is unclear if that rate can be used due to the structural limits and stability issues in that wing configuration. EDIT: Upon review at home of my Excel plots, it seems that the 1F-4C-1 and 1F-4E-1 use the exact same symmetrical load limit plot. This would imply they are ballpark suggested limits rather than accurate turn data. So I used the Vn diagrams to find an average CL for each of the hard and slatted wing jets and just plugged those average CL values back into n = L/W = CL*(0.5*rho*S*V^2)/W where n = load factor and W was the new weight I wanted - in this case a more realistic loaded weight per the STR graphs. Sorry for the confusion, it has been a while since I made these plots. I would assume that interpolating and extrapolating would yield similar results.

I know looking at plots doesn't tell the whole story but it looks like an armed F-4E with slats would be pretty closely matched to an F-5E in a rate fight, and maybe even better when both are clean. Do you have any stories tussling with F-5's in the weeds like this? Thanks again!

Thanks Kirk! Good to know we'll be able to out run the little F-5's

Very interesting. I'm still hoping we get strobes since that's more aligned with the timeline of the early F-4 when it saw combat but whatever it ends up being, I'll be happy with. @Cobra847 is this something you can confirm at this time? Kirk, did you ever train against simulated SA-6's with the APR-36? I wonder if there's anything you can tell us about if any part of that system was detectable because I know its bands are well within the bandwidth of the APR-36 but all public sources say it was difficult/impossible to detect it so I dont understand why... maybe a frequency agility thing.

Super. Thanks for sharing! Though it's a shame such a mod wasn't available for the Vietnam or Middle East wars, at least the smoke was gone in burner. And I bet it will help perform IFF in DCS

Would you have any info/sources to share on the latter -17C mods? It's been a while since I've been able to find anything technical or timeframe-specific regarding this upgrade.

Thanks Spidey. I will try testing this... hopefully we can find a server where our pings won't be too high.

Good point. I'm in Canada and my friend is in Ukraine. Could it be as simple as just very different ping causing the issue?

I have attached the latest log and tracks I managed to collect after my game would freeze today, every time I attempted multicrew with my friend. This happened on two different servers and even after a PC reboot. It happened the last time while using the single threading exe but happened all other 2-3 times on multi-threading. Essentially what we experience visually is that for the CPG, there is regular desync (I do not see it as pilot). Then after we fly for a bit (can be as low as 10 mins, as long as 30 mins or so), my screen will freeze and a few seconds later, my CPG is kicked from the aircraft but remains in the server. Being on a time crunch, I was not able to just wait to see if the game actually crashes after it freezes, but my friend who is flying with me as CPG gets kicked out of the slot (but not the server) every time. At that point I would just bring up task manager and close DCS. Only "mods" I have are SRS, skins and I use AIRIO for Voice Attack (which I was not running at the time). BLUE-FLAG.80s.miz-dynamic-20230430-131316.trk dcs.log BLUE-FLAG.80s.miz-dynamic-20230430-125538.trk Tempest’s Blue Flash 80's beta-V17-20230430-122738.trk

Yea, what other jet can carry 4 sparrows, 4 sidewinders, two drop tanks AND 12 Mk 82s at the same time? I dont even think the Strike Eagle could since the outer two hard points were deleted from the F-15 until just recently.

Just to add to the excellent information already provided, I'd also like to mention that the F-4E with slats showing up in late 1972 in the final stages of the Vietnam War with the "new" 555th TFS was a very mature version of the F-4 while the earliest of F-14A and F-15A blocks had a lot of hiccups to fix at the time when they were still prototypes. Of course despite this, when they worked properly, they really were next generation in terms of performance. To me, what makes this F-4E version special is that it was the best version of the F-4E to fight in wars (Vietnam, Israel in 1973) where it was the best over all in the world. After 1973, the F-14A, F-15A, Mirage F1, MiG-23 started showing up and IMO, the F-14/F-15 completely outclassed the new fighters entering service. The MiG-23MS - the first mass produced version - did not have a radar as capable as the 1977 circa MiG-23ML/MLA. And indeed the first examples of the MiG-23 to see combat was the MF variant in 1974 which had no BVR missiles and a MiG-21 radar. The AIM-7E-2 at this time also yes, had a poor hit rate - only improving over the legacy AIM-7 by around 2% - but Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965–1972 (and probably the infamous Ault report - I'd have to read it again to confirm) admits that a LOT of the missed missiles also had to do with shots out of parameters or switches being in the wrong position, leading to duds on top of the lack of reliability. I've seen figures as high as 30% of missed missiles was from these factors, but I'd have to dig deeper to be sure. If we end up making servers with period-accurate combat until and including 1973 tech, say good bye to chaff and flare launchers on either the F-4E or MiG-21 and very limited R-3R/S missiles on the MiG. The F-4 would be at a significant advantage here, being able to use AIM-9D's (if Israeli) or J's (probably similar/exactly the same as AIM-9P's as far as DCS is concerned). However to get good traffic, I imagine servers would understandably need to compromise a bit by having technologically similar jets for balanced gameplay and accessibility and sort of forgo time frames. From quick and rough checks of weights, dimensions and uninstalled, sea level engine thrust, the Mirage F1 appears to be inferior to the F-4E in thrust to weight ratio with a similar wing loading, aspect ratio and wing sweep while also having leading edge slats (the Mirage has half span slats and half span LE flaps), though it seems to be faster. It does not surprise me too much if it were to actually turn worse instantaneously and sustained. Also note that the S530F, while maybe a much faster missile than the AIM-7E-2 was a 1978ish missile - by which time the contemporary would have been the AIM-7F which equipped F-14's and F-15's and would equip some F-4E squadrons. The AIM-7F is still slower but it is loads better in performance and reliability than the AIM-7E variants. All this to say I guess is that the better MiG-23MLA and DCS Mirage F1 variants and weapons aren't really contemporary to this F-4E chronologically (but they would be for the later DMAS F-4E) - but rather they'd showed up when the likes of the Tomcat and Eagle were on the scene.

Haha I see what you mean. My eyes are only slightly better than the LANTIRN so to me, there's almost no difference!

Is the LANTIRN bad? I always found it incredibly good on the F-14.

There will also be unique audio for each emitter and filter buttons to help you focus on one type or the other. Still crude but of course threats at the time were fewer in type. I think it would be ideal for me if the earlier F-4E had the strobe display and the later F-4E with DMAS had the alphanumeric display. Best of both worlds and maximum immersion for the time frames.

I'm actually hoping it has the strobe display instead of the alphanumeric one since that would more reflect what would have been used in the wars in that time frame. Also, it would be a more novel feature for DCS.

So it looks like we are getting the ALR-46 RHAW of which there were many versions. Because the development of this system for DCS is related very closely to the ALR-45 on the F-14A (early) with a strobe display, I assume the F-4E is also getting an earlier strobe display design, unlike the alphanumeric ALR-46 version the DCS F-5E. Can anyone from HB confirm this? And does anyone have more info on this system? Most of my docs only talk about the APR-36/37 that showed up on the later F-4E's in Vietnam and Israel in 1972/73.

I believe it was communicated that the F-4F would only appear as liveries. Fuel lines and systems are one task but the non-slotted stabiliator would require different modeling - aerodynamics and mass are different. Modeling the F-4F would cause scope creep for this release... but who knows for the future.

Lol its not my opinion, I'm quoting you... with the airplanes switched.

"Alas we are not getting the F-4E, just a couple of bland F-4J/S..." If it were the other way around i wonder how this would be justifiable...

I knew this was a thing.. not a lot of people believed me but it would be nice to experiment and try this at least on missiles if possible (if the choice exists) to reflect missile failure rates of the time.

Sorry Kermie, this is one of the extremely rare times I'd have to agree with exhausted on this one... VTAS can be something that's disabled and you won't have to use it. I hope that it is going to be optional and that it can be removed or enforced in some servers, similar to the F/A-18 and F-16 HMD's. I'd still prefer to have the option though as it doesn't take anything away once disabled and it would be fun to try. However, there's no reason to go on a sarcastic tirade as you responded to the original post. It's fairly disrespectful. A simple "I' don't prefer it for reasons <XYZ>." is sufficient. Everyone wants their ideal version of the jet, and VTAS happens to be one of the technologies that was around at a similar time as the F-4E we're getting so why not the F-4J get the AWG-10B and VTAS? I also want a more dogfighting-prone environment with limited-capability missiles, but to discount anyone else's opinion with yours touted as superior is inherently illogical. Please try to be respectful.

Pretty sure he's the world's only F-16 ace! Thanks for sharing.

Wow these videos are great.. I'd often set these to loop while I fell asleep. Another great video that came out today from the Operations Room channel on youtube about Israeli F-4 action during the Yom Kippur War: