SgtPappy

Being the expert that you are in munitions, I noticed that the TO 1F-4E-1 states that the max symmetric G's you can pull while carrying AIM-9E/J is only 6.5 G. But the missiles definitely pull way more than that in flight. Do you know why this is so low? Is it an issue with the pylons or is 6.5 G the max G you can pull while firing the missile (since the max G load to fire does not seem to be stated in the -1)? I'm hoping I didn't miss something in the manual.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Wing and aircraft design are indeed relevant when we engineers determine (at least on paper) how an aircraft will perform. I suppose you are actually saying why we don't need aircraft-specific parameters in the formula? The calculations I provided don't require parameters like CL, CD etc because they are saying that: "given that an aircraft can pull n G's at speed v, what is its turn radius?" That is, the formulas are just basic kinematic formulas that work on anything that is turning. It assumes that the values you plugged in can be achieved by whatever aircraft/car/boat/thing you are calculating it for. Yes, this is correct.

Need more 3rd TFW liveries! My parents' home country never flew Phantoms, but they certainly hosted them... This one without TISEO matches our first DCS F-4E perfectly.

It was an Eagle driver who said during his presentation on YouTube that it wasn't a question of if a single seat was better, it was if a single seat could be good enough. It was understood that a second set of eyes with whom the pilot works well is way better than just 1 person.

There is none yet. Trust me, if there was one, it would be broadcast to the heavens.

Turn rate in radians/s = [g*(n2 - 1)1/2]/v where g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2), n = load factor in G's, v is true airspeed (in m/s if you are using g = 9.81 m/s2). Of course you can do other units too but make sure they are consistent. You can convert in deg/s by multiplying your answer by 180/pi (i.e. deg/s = (180/pi)*[g*(n2 - 1)1/2]/v). Turn radius assuming a circular turn (which it would be in a perfectly sustained, constant angular velocity turn) is r = v2/(g*(n2 - 1)1/2). I believe the Phantom graphs actually have the formula on it in Imperial units which you can use for any other graph.

The Ps and T/W advantages clearly help the Lightning here. However, I noticed that the Lightning charts show a climb at Mach = 0.87 past ~15,000 ft, so I subtracted the time to 15,000 ft and checked the time from there to 30,000 ft showing about 42 sec, standard ICAO day. Doing the same thing with the F-4E at full fuel gave me a very rough, spitball check of about 45 sec ± a few seconds since I'm essentially guessing lines from a fuzzy graph. So it appears they have a very similar climb, but maybe I'm missing something because evidence suggests the Lightning should be even better... although I did notice it has a 700 KIAS limit to 36,000 ft so the Phantom has a higher limit up until 36,000 ft where their speed limits intercept. All in all, they seem pretty darn close.

For 1. see here (report from 1972): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0904287 For 2. Ok this is going to be a lot of data, so if anyone has any corrections, please let me know. I've seen multiple charts, some of them without much context so I may be missing some things. See the MiG-21bis performance chart here from a German manual that I have (7500 kg, 2x R-3S. Right is special afterburner, left is regular afterburner.). I also have a Russian manual that says the has the same plots but the language barrier has stopped me from delving deep into them. Note that there's another plot which I think is a very light MiG-21bis that's sustaining ~8.4 G at Mach 0.95 or so which seems incredible but I don't know where it's from. Thread is here: Comparing this to the plots in the TO 1F-4E-1, the slatted F-4E appears to have a noticeable advantage at what I believe is 60% fuel and 4xAIM-7E's (42,777 lbs) - see figure A9-97 on digital page 446. The following chart is on page 1 of this thread as well. I recommend you download the manual if you don't have it already: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2015/09/f-4e-flight-manual-complete.html Turn rates for the Mirage III and F-106 is a little tricky. See the plots I have below which I believe are instantaneous G's (I don't think they can be sustained rates, because they'd be way better than the F-15A/C sustained rates per TO 1F-15A-1). Mirage IIIE: https://imgur.com/a/ohoRApq F-106A, 7700 lbs fuel: https://imgur.com/a/xsv32hB The closest analogue I have in my notes for the sustained rates of these jets is this J35 Draken which is of somewhat similar delta configuration (yes I know the intakes are weird) and has a similar T/W and wing loading. See that page below. Again take this with a grain of salt as I don't have the whole manual so I could be missing context, but if it's any indicator of the sustained rates of the Mirage IIIC, E or F-106, the F-4E is also a decent amount better. https://imgur.com/a/pvclj8b Another close analogue could be the clean MiG-21F that was tested by the US which has an almost identical STR to the slatted F-4E at 5000' (you'd have to eye-ball/interpolate the data in the F-4E chart): The F-4E also has a lot of ITR charts but they are all at a very light weight of 37,500 lbs which is drops of fuel. That's why, to get a SL best ITR at a representative weight of 42000 lbs, I used a different chart... see the F-4E max load diagram at SL below. It actually appears to be able to reach 6G at Mach ~0.55 with the F-106A reaching 6G just past Mach ~0.5 at sea level. Very similar ITR! https://imgur.com/a/65ov9WT True for any pilot vs pilot but in a 1v1 BFM fight (like is often the case in DCS), any 4th gen fighter will eat the F-4E for breakfast assuming competent pilots who keep tally on each other. I don't mean to be a downer, but we probably just should be realistic. The F-4E cannot compete with an F-15, let alone a Mirage 2000. So maybe you can clear something up for me. Either I can't read anymore or the plots I have aren't 100% clear but I have some Lightning F6 plots from a manual and my conclusions for time to climb is that the F-4E is quite noticeably superior when I look at the plots, but anecdotes have always said the Lightning was the best on earth: Lightning Mk 6 time to climb: https://imgur.com/a/Hz9dzTH F-4E time to climb with my notes overlaid: https://imgur.com/a/OfF7pmn And below is the Lightning F6 load diagram but I can't tell 100% if it shows sustained or instantaneous loads (like the Mirage III and F-106 charts). On one hand, the 3G line is almost the same Mach at SL compared to the F-106 and any of the lines are only slightly worse than the sustained plots for the F-15. So either the Lightning was very, very good for its time in STR, or it was a little worse than the F-106 in ITR. Both seem possible, but the plot must be one or the other. https://imgur.com/a/JxkkyYM Finally for what it's worth, F-104A pilot Walt Bjorneby's perspective on the F-4 with and without slats: "I was in the 319th FIS flying the F104A; friends of mine were in the 479th TFW flying the C model. I can confirm both outfits did use DACT (loose deuce) and emphasized use of the vertical. 319th was an Air Defense unit and primarily flew in pairs, thus 'loose deuce' was a natural choice. Our A models after mod had the G flap limits; 1.8M or 550KIAS. Thus we could actually out-turn F4s in level flight, that is, until they got the new slats, in which case we went vertical and ran them out of fuel because of the extra drag when their slats extended and they had to use lots of AB to keep their energy up. They got a lower corner velocity; we got the J79-19 engine and a LOT more Ps."

I was exactly the same way. I thought it was awesome but I didn't follow it, and now the F-14A is my favourite module. Now all I can think of is Phantom - day and night!

Yes, I believe the USAF got the idea and started doing this. The Rivet Haste crews were also all "fixed crews".

Don't talk to my girl TISEO like that

Two heads is better than one if they work together well. One of the biggest shortcomings of USAF doctrine in Vietnam was that they used to put different pairs in the cockpit between missions and often the two didn't know how to communicate well. To make matters worse, the guy in back (GIB) was often a pilot waiting to be promoted to the front seat so was unhappy and would often back seat fly. The USN on the other hand, caught this early and at least by the time of Top Gun, if not earlier, paired one guy with another for most if not all missions so they would work together. The RIO was also a dedicated NFO, not a pilot.

The only pictures I've seen of the IFF on the F-4 are the antennas shown on the APQ parabolic dish. I'm sure there's a bunch of hardware hidden elsewhere in the jet. APQ-120 on the F-4E with 4 IFF antennas: APQ-109 on F-4D without antennas for comparison: APQ-109 with 8 antennas:

If you're asking if F-4E's could carry the AIM-9L the answer is yes! First I thought that they might just be place holders for the sake of the trailer but then it would've made sense to use the AIM-9P model instead so you may be on to something??

I'm humbled but you might be mistaking me for GJS! They flew the Phantom in the UK. The APX-80/81 was standard starting with Block 48, per JNelson's comment.

It would be pretty close to the Rivet Haste birds that showed up right at the end of 1972 though right? Except without TISEO. Not sure about the other internals guts/systems.

Some but not all the Rivet Haste F-4E's did indeed have Combat Tree installed when they were flown in combat during the last months of the US involvement in Vietnam. The F-4 production chart also states that the APX-80 was built into a bunch of F-4E blocks but likely deleted for most export planes.

What is DMSQ? I know that DVST was the old display and DSCG is the newer digital version that had better displays. Or is DVSQ something else completely unrelated? Couldn't really find much on google.

To add to this, in March 1973, Israel received the first non-TISEO F-4E's that came from the factory with slats (Block 48 to 51, maybe 53) that would see combat. These would be the first slatted F-4E's to score MiG kills when war broke out in October of that year. I think the first version we are getting would essentially be anything in this block range, except with mods up until 1974 which may include things like the ALE-40 countermeasures dispenser.

Realistically, I'm betting it will be like most modules - as best as they can make it and it will eventually need tweaking as people explore the flight envelope. I'm not sure if anyone - even HB - can speculate on how "finished" it really will be.

No doubt the Israeli and especially Iran victories are contested. Even the books on Israeli Phantoms (Ghosts of Atonement) points out where opinions diverge between the US evaluation of the conflict and the Israeli claims (i.e. some Israeli losses are attributed to AAA when they were actually shot down by MiGs). However there are several kills that are confirmed by all sides (Israeli, US evaluators and Syrian or Egyptian accounts) and those are the ones I take most seriously. My research so far implies that most kills are confirmed. Even so, the sources in question are all US sources on the US-North Vietnam conflict and they confirm each other, for the most part. My question is primarily on the US claims of 23 kills for the F-4E vs 20 for the F-4J. There are also plenty of interviews and videos of both services' pilots but I want more book-related info since I guess I'd rather read than sift through (admittedly good, but long) interviews.

But... you just asked me to provide sources. Earlier you said: Then you said the following when asked about your sources: How confusing! Anyway - and now I'm asking genuinely- do you have any sources that refute the aerial victories in the sources I posted? This is an open question to anyone in the thread btw. If my understanding of the F-4's A2A victories is wrong, I'd really like to know.

That's insane! But sounds typical. Thanks for the insight. Sounds like you guys and girls must have been overworked. I wonder if newer aircraft like the Typhoon are much better in this regard or if it was more of a staffing or logistics issue regardless of airplane type.

I guess getting back to the F-4... I heard that the F-4 always came home with something broken. Do you think that's true? Would that be a testament to how much damage it could take, or does it mean the Phantom was fragile?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. And they say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again so I guess I'm insane because I'll try this one more time even though this has ALL been stated before in this thread and several others... With the exception of that video you've actually not backed up one claim with any numbers or reference to text. The Osprey series of books contain probably our best records of aircraft victories to date. They are not perfect and every researcher/author of each volume has disclaimed the possible errors in their books. Even if all but three or four of the ~115 claims these stock F-4E's got during the War of Attrition during their service from 1969-1973 and Yom Kippur War (Oct 1973) are unconfirmed, (stock means without modification because you ignored that twice already) it would still be more kills than the F-4J. Extensive modification (refuel probes, new weapons, etc.) of these F-4's happened after the Yom Kippur War. That said, the F-4J is not any less awesome than the F-4E just because it got fewer kills. This is a concept you do not understand, and one I'm sure you'll ignore for the fourth time. The stock slatted F-4E then saw combat with Iran as well in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War and was the back bone of their AF. We don't have reliable kill stats but we know they shot down at least a few MiG-21s and MiG-23s. We also know they undertook most of the bombing missions alongside F-5's and much later, modified F-14's. The tonnage dropped by just the F-4E when cross referenced with the other texts shows that it dropped more ordnance, and caused more collective damage than all other variants combined. Doesn't make it better, but it does make it far from non-negligible. Both the F-4E and F-4J got a similar number of kills in US service in Vietnam (~20) with the F-4J shooting down more MiG-17s and the F-4E shooting down more MiG-21s. In fact, according to [1] and [2] (see bottom of post), the F-4E got 23 kills and according to [3], [4], and [5], the F-4J got 20. So your whole argument based on air to air victories crumbles. I suppose you'll find a new goal post to invalidate this. I've already mentioned that the 24 Rivet Haste birds flew over 200 sorties logging over 600 combat hours between Nov 1972 and Jan 1973, but you've ignored the service of all those who took part in the program and anyone who flew the F-4E before them. Most of their combat was air to ground but you've ignored that as well. Even if you wanted to count that service as negligible, then your claims of the F-4S would hold no water because it saw no combat and was fewest in number between the F-4E or J. Then there's still that unaddressed claim you made that the slatted F-4E's maneuverability doesn't matter because it's not interesting or whatever you made up. But I'm sure you'll ignore this too and not address a single one, or maybe you'll focus on one claim and say the rest is wrong or you'll just say the opposite again for some reason. Frankly, this is a delusional statement. I've also tried to show empathy to your arguments on why the F-4J would best represent the Phantom first (my second favourite version) on three occassions and you have not reciprocated once... People are agreeing not because of popularity, but because most Phantom records are publicly verified and the replies to you contain logic that can only be dismissed by ignorance or denial (that, and you're not addressing rebuttals to your made-up claims, you're being unfriendly and unempathetic, to put it kindly). This is why I'm convinced you either have some unaddressed, unhealthy coping mechanism resulting in absolute denial of fact or you're doing this on purpose. Unless there are legitimate reasons to continue, I will stop talking to a wall. References: [1] Futrell, Frank (1976). United States Air Force in Southeast Asia 1965-1973: Aces and Aerial Victories. Air University, Headquarters USAF [2] Davies, Peter(2012). USAF F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1972–73 [3] Naval History and Heritage Command [4] Elward, Brad. US Navy F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1972-73. Osprey Publishing. [5] Stoffey, Robert (2008). Fighting to Leave: The Final Years of America's War in Vietnam, 1972-1973