SgtPappy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

I am talking about just the game. In both the game and real life, both have the boost motor but only the AIM-7F and later variants have the sustain motor which lasts I think for 8 seconds and ignites immediately after the 2.9 second boost phase. I'm not sure about the CCM values, but the burn time isn't something that would just be a difference in real life.

The AIM-7E series only have a 2.9 sec burn boost phase. The sustainer phase was first added on top of the boost motor with the AIM-7F, thus the AIM-7F has a significant range advantage over the AIM-7E.

TISEO and DMAS were separate upgrades. My understanding is that DMAS was a post-YKW upgrade. The first TISEO-equipped Phantoms to see action flew in the closing days of the US' involvement in the Vietnam War.

Please... never stop posting this stuff

Wow if we could get the AGM-65D on the pre-DMAS bird, that will be incredible! Hopefully we'll at least get the B.

Are you sure the the USAF F-4E's could carry AIM-7M's? My understanding is that the last compatible version was the AIM-7F which could accept the CW guidance available from the old APQ-120 radar. I don't remember if the AIM-7M was ever capable of this. A bit of a tangent here but the DCS AIM-7F is kinematically identical to an AIM-7M (without loft) anyway so they could still be deadly in a restricted 80's weapons scenario. And as for Vietnam-era birds, they could include the AIM-9J as well. We already have the P so it would be basically the same from a DCS perspective, save for maybe CM resistance.

Honestly I know how you feel! I can't remember the last time I was THIS crazy about anything. We're all united on this front at the very least

This is really interesting stuff! I'm definitely going to save the videos in my documents.. But dude, we have agreed a long time ago. There's nothing you are saying that we do not agree with. The issue is you seem to be focusing on these vortices but the argument was about something totally different. For the third time: Your original position that slats do not increase STR has been disproven with aerodynamics, data and anecdotes. Not some blind faith. Then you changed the topic into talking about vortices which is something else that no one else is disputing.

That's the thing, we have plenty of that here/in other threads which were mentioned already but Kermit didn't seem to believe them at first. So Hummingbird posted data that is in line with what the pilots have mentioned. Nothing better than data to back up anecdotes from real aircrew, right?

I don't think anyone plans on giving up modules. It's just we're not flying them as much right now. It doesn't mean we're never going to fly them again.

For sure a lot of the problem was training. The AIM-9J hit at the edge of its envelope when it first entered service i believe 4/4 shots. However since the aircrew was given wrong information about its range at low altitude, the rest were fired out of range and the AIM-9J never hit again. It was possibly a very good missile but we'll never know beyond those shots. In DCS we've learned from all this (and of course it's a game) so we will be able to use them to better effect.

Well, originally we were arguing about STR increase and slats but now we're talking about slat phenomena. So the discussion got a little muddy. Do you have any papers on this phantom phenomenon?

That's all well and good - no one is disputing that there's more nuance to flying the F-4 but this was not the original point of discussion. You are changing the topic. The original argument you made was that it was odd that the F-4E with slats sustain a turn better since slats create extra drag especially when deployed. Everyone knows they make more drag. My rebuttal which you so kindly called rubbish before understanding what I was saying is that the extra drag does not cause a decrease in sustained turns for the F-4E; a point that is supported by flight test data specifically regarding the slat addition to the Phantom (which plainly show in figures 50 and 51 higher Cl/Cd ratios with slats extended at high Cl), the F-4E manual and the F-14 manual. With these three sources at least, we can surmise with little doubt that in general, the highest and realistically-achievable subsonic STR and max ITR increased with slats installed and extended - that's it. That's all I am saying. All the other stuff about aircraft dynamics - buffet, the reason why slats were installed, how hard the plane is to push to its limits - are not relevant to this particular discussion, but are good things to remember nonetheless. Reaching maximum instantaneous turn rate, one could argue is pushing to the limits but we've already agreed that this max turn rate is improved by slats: The thrust-limited performance of the F-4 is mentioned in the report, word for word that "Maximum afterburning thrust-limited turning performance tests were conducted at 10,000, 20,000 and 35,000 feet pressure altitude with loading 1. At the test altitude an acceleration was performed to a selected Mach number. The airplane was then banked into a turn at a constant altitude while sufficient normal load factor was attained to stabilize airspeed." Figure 50 shows they tested up to 6G at 10,000 ft. This 6G limit is shown in the F-4E-1 manual as the highest sustained G for the F-4E with 4xAIM-7s (and ~50-60% fuel based on the listed weight of 42,777 lbs). If that isn't the very definition of sustained turning, I'm not sure what else I am missing. Unless all three of these sources are incorrect/so erroneous such that they all lie about the improvement in maximum turn rates due to slats, then your point stating the slats should not improve sustained turn rate is not correct in the context of the F-4. Whether it was difficult to fly to this AoA or not is not relevant. Sure, we can surmise that the data and charts do not show the whole envelope of the F-4, but that's not what we're discussing... we're just looking at the most realistically achievable turn rates because anything past that is different from plane to plane and from pilot to pilot and isn't shown in the reference data (manuals) or the experimental data (slat report). Furthermore, anecdotes, though useful, are not data. Even if those interviews could be used as data, there are real Phantom pilots on these very forums posting in these exact threads who have spoken in favour of the Phantom's increased turn rates thanks to the slats and they also have mentioned the disadvantages associated with the extra drag that was present at all parts of the flight envelope. Like you said, you might be able to come over the top of a loop better in a hard-wing bird but that's a different maneuver than the sustained turns whose plots you questioned. Before anyone asks "why the obsession with data? Flying a plane is more than data blah blah blah" well it's because data can be compared and reliably cross-referenced and most planes will probably fit that data with high confidence. There's probably even data out there about the aircraft stability, buffet "envelope" if you will, and all sorts of other things - but I doubt they will contradict the aforementioned sources. Anecdotes add context but will never replace verifiable data.

Thanks for the reading suggestion, I'll be sure to check it out. Yes, though I feel the distinction may be a bit pedantic, the cropped delta is technically the right term, I meant swept leading edge. Indeed, that was what I was implying - that it was surprising back then. I don't appreciate "rubbish" being thrown around, but I'll just take that as "it's the internet and people get mad a lot and resort to disrespectful language every now and then". You can just say I'm wrong. Trust me, I love learning and don't mind being corrected. But whatever, it's human nature and you sound like a decent person otherwise. That said, I think there might be a misunderstanding here and I could have been clearer, apologies. Saying "drag decrease" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that versus having a highly swept wing (or delta/cropped delta in this case) at high AoA with no slats, you get separation that would result in more drag at clean Clmax than the drag you have with slats at the same AoA (i.e. CL/CD is better with slats at high AoA, high Cl condition). Without slats, the aircraft would stall sooner so Cl is dropping while Cd isn't. With slats yes, of course Cd still goes up but you have access to higher Cl since the flow remains attached. Does that sound better? Can we have a discussion without insults? For point #1, I'm not sure what you mean by "they improve Cd/Cl". Do you mean that Cd/Cl gets better = decreases or did you simply mean Cd/Cl increases (which would be a bad thing). What I was trying to say is that Cd/Cl would be even worse without slats. For #2 what do you mean by slats "used to" to work in laminar flow? Do you mean they only operate in turbulent flow as a function of span, chord, AoA or something else? When you look at the F-14 charts, you see a similar effect as seen in the F-4 charts - that slats can increase the sustained and instantaneous turn rate (maybe not always in other configurations) . The F-14 manuals show plots for the Tomcat with slats/flaps locked and another set for slats and maneuver flaps operating and all subsonic turn rates increase whether the wings are swept or not. If your original point was that slats should always produce enough drag such that sustained turns should be worse in general, then the Tomcat and Phantom plots imply that this is not true. There must be something more that is being missed.

The ITR in the lower excel-generated plot is a linear extrapolation from the data I have from the slatted F-4E manual. It may not be very accurate but I think it should be an OK estimate. The sustained turn figures are directly from the manual. Manuals are also not perfect - a lot of data is calculated but should also give a rough idea of aircraft capabilities. The big jump in sustained G from these manuals however, imply that the difference was big enough to notice. An aerobatic plane from an airshow probably won't have highly swept wings which is the main difference here as the drag created at high AoA flight has very different characteristics vs a straight or even moderately swept wing. Early testing done on the F-86F sharp hard wing surprised engineers when, at high AoA, they saw turbulent flow that was reversing over the wing surface, indicating what would be a stall on a straight wing, yet the wing was not stalled - they realized they were looking at vortices created in part by strong spanwise flow which was providing lift at the cost of great drag. Assuming the slats are scheduled correctly, they will decrease this drag that would otherwise be created at high AoA, turblent flow over a slatless swept wing. Of course the cost is complexity, weight, and - in the F-4's case - lots of profile and parasitic drag since the outer slats don't actually "retract". The Hornet and Viper have nice solutions which involve LE flaps on their very thin wings which cannot mount slats while using LERX/LEX to provide high AoA vortex lift. Meanwhile the Mirage uses slats on its highly swept wing.

Awesome! Can't wait to see

Haha Civics are too good to just leave, cold turkey! That said, don't shame Manhorne for it. Those who feel this way can't force themselves to feel what they feel nor can they force themselves to play if it doesnt make them happy. Ever try doing something you used to do often but just currently don't feel like doing? It becomes a chore!

Well everyone's different. It's great that you feel that way about your modules. But let's make an attempt to show you what at least I feel. I love and appreciate the work that has gone into these modules, and they are indeed amazing. But now imagine that literally the whole reason you got into flight sims - the airplane that sparked your interest into your hobby is now finally being made (especially after being canceled once before), and by one of the highest-quality module makers and then you realize, it's not that the other modules are crap, it's just that finally something you've waited for is actually going to be available. Said another way, you're a big big fan of the dodge Viper and after driving reliable and perfectly lovely Honda Civics for 2 decades, you can finally afford your dream Viper. I haven't met anyone in this situation who would be still super into their Civic. I bet Manhorne probably feels a similar way. It's not that hard to understand if you try