SgtPappy

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

Lol a screen door! I feel the same in terms of my other modules other than the F-14 which is just of such high quality and helps me feel almost like the Phantom is just around the corner. Given the current circumstances, of course a longer wait is completely reasonable. Hoping to get an update soon. @Cobra847, sorry to hear about your loss. Condolences and all the best to you and your family.

The slats only have 2 discrete positions - in and out. They pop out at 11.5 units AoA and retract at 10.5 units per the -1 manual.

The attached image is probably just a high-level summary but it appears to show that the slatted F-4E's were delivered to Iran at the latest in 1972. The square that shows F-4E's delivered to Iran from 1969 to March 1971 would probably be the only of the three shown deliveries that would not have slats.

Yes, the slatted, TISEO-equipped F-4E saw some combat from Nov 1972 til the end of US involvement in Jan 1973. 2 or 3 Sparrows were fired but the MiGs went cold each time. Most work was A2G where the Mav saw first combat use. The majority of slatted F-4E ace-making kills came with the Israelis in the 1973 Yom Kippur/October War. Then Iran flew them heavily in both air-to-surface and A2A from 1981-1989 against Iraq but those records are spotty and hard to confirm. Yea for sure, I'm willing to bet the majority of pilots liked the slats. I know that Jerry Tucker - the F-8J pilot who scared a MiG-17 pilot so bad, the pilot ejected before Tucker could take a shot - flew the F-4S and found it could turn circles around the F-8J. But it would makes sense that a few of those (especially those who saw lots of combat) in the hard wing F-4 might prefer the higher performance over the tighter turns. We saw this a lot in WW2 and Korea with differing pilot opinions on different aircraft. Kirk, did you know anyone personally who preferred the hard wing version overall? Did you?

Brilliant insight, Kirk! There is so much detail in your posts, that if you wrote a book just about these experiences, I bet I'd be able to almost feel what it would be like to fly a Phantom. For instance, I didn't ever realize that an F-104 would feel good to fly in maneuvers. Really cool that you visited us up here. On the subject of slats not being universally liked, I can also see that from the charts. There is a massive cost in top speed at all altitudes in addition to a much lower ceiling and climb rate. I guess though there's still enough power to beat up MiGs - just not as much as there was before the slats. For instance, the plots show that the hard wing F-4E completely demolishes the MiG-21bis in speed and ceiling and is similair in climb and acceleration while carrying much more ordnance. It can't hope to turn with the MiG. With the slats, its about on par on every field (even a bit slower) but it sustains a better max turn rate. Similar conclusions can be drawn when compared the the Viggen's real world plots. I too hope we get a hard wing F-4J next and we can then compare two different flavours of combat-proven Phantoms.

Thanks Kirk! I know there is hysteresis built into the slat scheduling, but I guess sometimes this somehow failed? Did you experience this regularly? Yeah it sounds like in a hard turn you wouldn't notice the change. With all that adrenaline pumping you'd probably miss a lot of things!

To be fair, the guy in the video says an almost unnoticeable change in pitching moment. Slats are a discrete change in configuration, so it stands to reason that an experienced enough crew will notice the step change in pitching moment, however small especially, as you said, at landing. Pitching moment wouldn't be the only thing that changes either. As you already know, the chaotic/turbulent boundary layer separation would be tamed once the slats come out, leading to a change in buffet intensity over the second that the slats deploy which likely can be felt pretty easily. If stuck at a speed where AoA may change by +/-1 or 2 deg. due to gust or maneuvering while in the pattern, I can see the slats "chattering" as Kirk mentioned which wouldn't be unnoticeable once flying a precision approach.

I believe Kirk stated that the slatted Phantom did indeed turn a lot better and was much easier handling at very high AoA. But he did fly it after all, and also mentioned that the later F-4E's just had lots of draggy bits - TISEO, under-wing cameras, double rear view mirrors and the slats. The F-4C was a lot lighter and cleaner and probably accelerated better at higher speeds where slats were dead weight. I think in some post from a long time ago, Kirk also mentioned (correct me if I'm wrong) how at low speeds and high AoA, you could feel the effect that the TISEO pod had on drag and stability.