SgtPappy

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.

My guess in an F-4, you would do your best to drain the MiG dry of energy so you can line up a good shot for a rear-aspect heater. Otherwise, try and get a good AIM-7 shot. With the F-4J/S, a working radar would make the latter pretty deadly in an early 70s scenario. And although the F-4S is an 80s jet, I can see mission designers putting in the same arena as the other mid-Cold War planes.

That's what I'm thinking as well. HB stated the earlier block that's coming out will have DSCG, and a bunch of other retrofits from 1974 and earlier so there's a good chance it will have Mavs. The later, DMAS bird will have TISEO, probably the AAQ radar mode, and other goodies.

Just curious, what is it specifically about the block 53 that you're wanting?

You already made a thread regarding this question. As with any other module, the F-4 be useable in every map. Perhaps you are trying to ask something else that I am not understanding.

I believe you are correct. I believe that the smokeless variants of the J79 only showed up after the US left the Vietnam War and so by the time the DMAS version was around, it was likely common on the F-4E. So I would guess the DMAS F-4E that HB is making may be smokeless and the earlier F-4E will have smokey exhaust.

Any update on this issue? The apache is also spawning inside helipads.

I think it's "Clashes: Air Combat over Vietnam" that mentions some pilots would put one engine into min burner and the other to idle to reduce the smoke while saving fuel and that it was relatively effective. I'm not sure how it was finally solved later but you bet I'm going to use smoke to IFF while in combat where there are mixed friendlies and hostiles.

That's what I thought. What great insight! On a similar note, I remember reading the Israelis had trouble detecting SA-6 CW launch warnings for the first few days of the Yom Kippur War. I had thought that as long as the carrier frequency is within the detecting bandwidth of the RWR, you'd hear it. Perhaps the SA-6 used some kind of chirping that made the APR-36 unable to detect it? Were you able to hear weird FM modulations with your experience?

This is pretty hype - I wonder if theoretically, a good ear can determine the type of radar and its mode based on the audio alone. Real cool stuff!

I don't follow. The IFF interrogator and RWR systems are separate, independent systems.

The SAC data for the F-14A in 1977 says the APX-76A(V) is used and the APX-76B(V) is used for the F-14D (1985). F-14A (1977) SAC: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14A_Tomcat_SAC_-_April_1977.pdf F-14D (1985) SAC: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14D_Tomcat_SAC_-_July_1985_(Partially_Declas).pdf Given the limitations of DCS, I think the IFF will work perfectly every time just like it does with the F-14 right now.

I'm fairly certain that the APX-76 IFF interrogation system was present since at least 1967 on the F-4D. The APQ-109 radar on the F-4D had 8 IFF antennas and the APQ-120 has 4. I am under the impression that this is the standard IFF systems that can identify only friendlies. Combat Tree (APX-80/81, not sure yet what the difference is since the 1F-4E-34-1-2 makes reference to both) used the APX-76 controls though they both displayed info on the same screen. Together, you could see friendlies and any MiG transmitting using the SPO-2. Hopefully someone can shed more light on this since I'm having a hard time finding the manual that mentioned the APX-76 IFF.

Keep in mind there is a possibility that this is subject to change (maybe HB can clarify?) but this was the response from HB on my own TISEO question in the other TGP thread (spoiler alert, TISEO is planned on the ARN-101/DMAS-equipped version but not the earlier block 36-45 version):

I have read here and there (no credible sources unfortunately) that ALE-40 showed up between 74-75 on the F-4E (this forums conversation: http://aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=6438). I'm trying now to find a good source.

There's a lot more info in the Phantom vs XXX thread (link at bottom of this post). But to summarize, yes, they make a noticeable difference. For context the F-4J with 4x AIM-9Ds and 4x AIM-7E's needs to have very little fuel such that it weighs 37,500 lbs. (that's ~25% fuel) to match the sustained subsonic turn rate performance of the F-4E with slats carrying 4xAIM-7E when carrying ~60% fuel (block 50 and above) at a much heavier 42,777 lbs. All this data is from the manual. Of course with this light weight, the F-4J can pull more max G's but anything lower than 7.5, and it matches the F-4E almost exactly. Supersonic, the clean F-4J is vastly superior in sustained turns, top speed, ceiling and acceleration. Another illustration below shows the relative difference between the F-4D and a heavier F-4E which again, despite the higher weight, the F-4E turns better. Another big advantage is the more care-free handling at high AoA. There is therefore reason to believe that the F-4S improvement would be similar.

I think I have had similar experiences here so I practiced vs various targets offline and it appears that it still does go active with ACM cover up but you have to be closer than before. Routinely, I would fire AIM-54C's online at ~ 10 nm and the missile would right away drop off the plane which was my indication that it was active. Now, the target has to be a little closer and very hot which leads me to believe the active at launch/off the rail is a TTI-driven thing (maybe that was common knowledge but I don't remember for sure). I'm fairly certain that the AIM-54s go active based on calculated TTI (< 16 s?) and now that they have slowed down especially at lower altitude, TTI is a lot longer at 10 nm than it used to be so you have to be a lot closer for the missile to go active off the rail unless you have a RIO. The rate of acceleration now appears to be more in line with the real AIM-54 launch videos that exist, but of course that is peanuts compared to the actual papers/proof shown earlier in this thread.

That tiger nose art looks awesome!