SgtPappy

Hey thanks a lot! I think I'll grab these and digest them first. I was most interested in are sustained turn rates at a "combat load" at 16 deg. sweep. What does it say in your 3rd screenshot? I'll try to plug it into google translate in the meantime but I have a feeling you'd be faster than me typing in Cyrillic Also, I looked through my files and turns out I only have 2 screenshots, not the whole manual!

I'm not too sure. It's hard to tell because the MiG-23ML's 16 deg. wing sweep stops abruptly around Mach 0.7. So unless the manual says that is the fastest you can go with 16 deg. sweep, then the MiG-23ML has high potential to be better as speed increases but it's impossible to conclude from just that plot. Do you have an English (or maybe even French) one? I have this manual only in Russian but it's cumbersome to read through and find the right plot so perhaps I have not got there yet. Maybe you can point us in the right direction.

Awesome! Thanks nighthawk! However, something I noticed after cross referencing the above with the source data (I'm pretty sure it's the same data I have) is that the F-4E values are from the SL graphs in the 1F-4E-1 manual while the MiG data is at 1000 m (3028 ft) altitude. The difference between SL and 3 kft performance is pretty small, though, and one can interpolate between plots in the F-4E manual to find the true values which would only drop a little anyway. It doesn't change the conclusion that the MiG-21bis is at a disadvantage against the F-4E in a sustained turn. From the same sources, the F-4E STR data at 10 kft still shows an advantage against the MiG-21bis at 3000 m (9842 ft). And based on the MiG-23ML plot and the accompanying charts, the dashed line really appears to be the Flogger's maximum AoA limit lift line so anything left of that would be unachievable - I suppose then that these values are calculated rather than flight tested, or maybe a combination of both. It sucks that we only get data up to just past Mach 0.7 for the MiG-23's 16 deg. wing sweep configuration because there's a chance that the turn rate drops as speed increases, just like the Tomcat since the wing sweep is starting to run into wave drag issues at low sweep and high subsonic Mach. However, that is speculation and we won't ever know for sure. Another thing I'm not sure of is the F-4E block 35 graphs. The hard wing F-4E plots I have show a significant decrease in STR compared to the slatted F-4E but these ones in your post show a slight advantage. Perhaps it is data extrapolated linearly by simply decreasing the weight from the 1-F4E-1 manual to emulate slatted Block 35 performance? Just to nitpick a bit as well: All F-15C serial numbers are from FY1978 and later so in 1976/77, there would only be F-15A's in actual combat. But that's neither here nor there in the context of this conversation.

Not sure if this is the MiG-23ML graph Gypsy may be getting their conclusion from. But I haven't managed to translate it so I do not fully understand it. It looks like there's a Ps=0 line that crosses what appears to be a CLmax line so I'm not sure how that works. Should I just ignore the Ps=0 line left of the CLmax line since the aircraft should be stalling at that point? If not, then that line shows a non-negligible sustained turn advantage over the circa 1972/73 slatted F-4E. Anyway if anyone can translate or provide context, that would be great. As for the MiG-21bis, yeah it does have a higher T/W and ITR but I personally think the slatted F-4E's sustained turn performance will be a challenge for the MiG. The contemporary for the hard-wing F-4E I think could be the MiG-21MS and the slatted F-4E came out around the same time as the MiG-21bis if we're talking time frame. I'll have to look at the time to climb and acceleration charts in my manual but I don't remember them being massively different over the F-4E. At the end of the day, I guess it depends what mission designers do. Some may prefer time-frames like Vietnam or Yom Kippur Wars with HB's earlier F-4E and rear-aspect only heaters (I'm thinking Alpenwolf or Blue Flag 70s servers) or they might just lump in similar tech level aircraft together in which case the Mirage F1 and MiG-23MLA would be top dogs vs the late F-4E. The MiG-23MLA is I think a 1976/1977 aircraft and the R-60M's are, what, late 70s early 80s however so it's more in line with the F-14A (early) and F-15A in terms of contemporaries. I'd post the slatted F-4E charts but my manual is from the 1980's and it's easy enough to find anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong on my conclusions. The various language barriers for these manuals may have me taking things out of context. MiG-21bis in regular afterburner (left) vs "special" afterburner (right)

I only have this one source after researching as much as I could on the Rivet Haste birds a couple years back. I haven't been able to find the original quoted report in full. I got it from http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=5985 From the summary page of a report titled, "TAC Project 72A-068F: Rivet Haste SEA Intoduction (U) Final Report" dated April 1973 "The introduction team was in place at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand, from 12 November 1972 to 12 January 1973. The 20 Rivet Haste aircraft and aircrews were integrated into the 555th Tactical Fighter Squadron of the 432d Tactitcal Reconnaissance Wing and consisted of all Block 48 F-4E air superiority aircraft. During this period of introduction, the Rivet Haste aircraft flew 238 combat sorties for a total of 643.6 combat hours..." The 20 jets did NOT show up in one wave. The first increment of 6 Rivet Haste aircraft arrived at Udorn on 20 November...first in-theather flights were flown on 24 November. [note: none of these 6 had APX-81 Combat Tree] Second batch of 6 Rivet haste arrived thusly...5 on 18 December 1972, and number 6 the following day, 19 December (delay was due to radio failure departing George AFB with the others). All 6 jets had Combat Tree. Last batch of 8 arrived at Udorn on 13 January 1973. Only 4 of the 8 had Combat Tree. As stated above, the first combat mission was 24 November 1972. There were ONLY three MiG engagements by Rivet Haste jets. The first was on 22 December by a non-Tree jet, at night , closed to within 4000' but could not get clearance to shoot. Second was a during the day, the MiGs popped in and out of clouds before a shot could be taken. [I infer a VID shot criteria, probably due to numbers/proximity of radar contacts.] The last was also at night, during a tail chase a max range AIM-7 shot was taken...no luck. This was the ONLY missile shot by a Rivet Haste jet.

Korean Phantoms look great. I really like this F-4E grey scheme as its a bit more interesting than other grey planes.

In general, you're right. Most E's did not have them. However, as of November, 1972 under program "Rivet Haste", F-4E's with slats, cockpit ergonomics mods, long gun muzzles and TISEO arrived. Some of them had Combat Tree and these Phantom crews which trained together saw many many sorties, firing the first Mavericks in anger (most sorties were air-to-ground, 600 hrs or 600 sorties or so I forget the number) before the US left in 1973. They encountered MiGs on at least 3 occassions but their Sparrows missed.

I was wondering about this as well. That's a good article that explains exactly what it is too. I've heard F-14's had it at one point as well (maybe they all had it). The F-4E's that arrived in Vietnam in November 1972 were mostly fitted with it in addition to TISEO. HB said they're making an F-4E from that time period but not sure if both those mods I mentioned will make it into the upcoming F-4E's since not all of them from that time period had these systems. If we do get it, I can see the F-4 being pretty powerful since other aircraft of the time period would basically need VID, as far as I'm aware. Do our MiG-21's have one of the transponders that would be vulnerable to this system? I admittedly have not flown it enough to know.

Yes, among other differences like clipped wings (which allowed the servos to adjust the wings to higher AoAs, allowing the missile to pull more instantaneous G), fusing and missile flight orientation (no longer flew with one set of wings level and the other straight vertical, but rather looked like an "X" in flight). All were meant to give it better A2A capability.

I learned so much about the F-4 and US doctrine during the Vietnam war from "Clashes: Air Combat Over North Vietnam, 1965-1972" by Marshall L. Michel III. I still refer to material here when I have questions. "Israeli F-4 Phantom II Aces" by Shlomo Aloni also gives a great perspective on the Israeli experience with the F-4 from SAM avoidance to dogfights and gun kills in the most intense aerial fighting that Phantom crews have ever seen.

Something tells me that the general MP server audience will enable the most modern weapons and won't do historical accuracy which is fine. Personally the more historically-inspired servers will be my main place to play.

Same here. The servers that historically reflect wars like Vietnam and the Middle East wars of the 60s and 70s would have weapon restrictions, but the Phantom (or at least some version of it) will be right at home in more modern environments using all-aspect heaters, countermeasures and PGM's. There's so much potential for this module.

I was thinking the same thing, but maybe it's like, a fever dream lol. All I've been having are similar dreams the past two days!

Yessss this is one of the things I'm really looking forward to! It will be a unique experience that until now has only been partially simulated mainly with the F-5 on the blue side. Combat will be so viceral in a different way than 80s or modern servers - the lack of 1 circle face-shooting fights and lots more dogfighting and guns kills... I've ben waiting for this for years!

Agreed 100%. If there's anything I've learned, it is indeed to pay less attention to the "this vs that" question. It's brought me a lot more sanity. But it had to be learned since this isn't a lot of our professions, so generally we look to folks like you. That doesn't mean that I can't also appreciate the idea that a computer game/simulation should be built by the numbers. But I also empathize with views which say these numbers are not grand-scheme important to most people which is also fine. My main point was really - "let's get along guys when the next FM comes out" because you must admit, it was getting tense. But I can't control what anyone decides to do/doesn't want to do and I have the genuine belief that pretty much all of us are decent people who can just get emotional over a shared passion. I don't want this to be some kind of blame game, but rather an attempt at a reminder that in a sense, we're in this together.

Might be better to supply a tacview or short video of one.

I don't think anyone reasonable thinks this is a bad thing but people prefer different things from this sim/game. I think the current differences appear reasonable except maaaaybe the compressor stalls which Victory205 has mentioned are being worked on since he never had compressor stalls flying through others' jetwash. In the game, you may notice it happens all the time at least for me even if I set the power levers and never touch them. I've flown straight and level as a jet passed close above me and had my engines pop, but again - it's a WIP. Variability could be immersive and of course lack of perfection is reasonable (what even IS perfection?), but there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might not like that. There is an argument that "perfectly fresh jets performing up to fantastic standards are rare. Each plane performs differently and therefore there's no need to reach that accuracy". However if every jet in a video game (which this is) performs exactly the same, then one of premises of the argument is flawed because now they all perform exactly the same. There is no variability in video games of this complexity yet so why not have them perform to the most recognizable, verified standard? These are the manuals and the loads of data we have, which admittedly, are imperfect as well. Still, it's the best we got. We can swing in the other direction entirely and say none of that matters, what matters is the SME's feel only but you can quickly see why that is also flawed. So the best approach is likely something in between: get as close to the non-classified data as possible and add tweaks here or there in places where the data can't replicate what is needed. There have been a lot of pissing contests and sore butts in the past in this very thread and it disappoints me greatly because we're all sort of just trying to get the most out of the game yet for some reason, we can't agree to disagree with what each of us individually believes is the goal. It isn't up to any of us what the other thinks should be important. Really just wanted to put that out there because I'm fairly sick of the conflict which I feel will pop up the next time the F-14 FM is updated.

I'm going to name him whatever I want, as long as I can keep him and take care of him and walk him daily! No need for scouring any dark web for those, there everywhere and can be found from the first couple of results in a quick Google search! https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.f4phantom.com/docs/F4Manual-1979-T-O-1F-4E-1-Flight-Manual-USAF-Series-F-4E-Aircraft.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwixnOn7lND1AhUqLTQIHZHpACoQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw39Iz98V8djiBNaKJ4bq6Nq No need to stir the rivalry here. Let's keep it civil and unite for our love of the Phantom rather than starting any beef over some old squabble shall we?

Can it be both...?

Looks like the previous thread was deleted. I reposted the plots below. STR in deg/s plots have been removed since they are exact copies of the -1 manual. In addition, they did not match the deg/s calculated from the acceleration charts which I have assumed are more accurate since acceleration is measured directly unlike deg/s turn rates. Let me know what you guys think. Again not sure if this is a bug or just something that has slipped through multiple updates but it was just an observation.

If I had to guess, another limitation is that if you wanted the biggest antenna size for the finest and most aerodynamic nose cone, then that means you would be limited theoretically to how much you could move that big antenna around right? I would imagine the trade-off is better performance and resolution for a given power output vs being able to notch and guide a missile at the same time. The latter capability was limited in use because as GG said, there's no need to lone-wolf in real life. Doctrine in general meant working as a team.

Not sure if this is really a "bug" in the traditional sense, or just something that has not been updated in a while. Please see the following thread which details some of the quick and dirty tests some of us did which appear to show the F-15's STR delta vs the -1 plots. Clean, it seems the delta is +0.2 G in some parts of the envelope - not sure if that's small or big based on ED's ability to model. With a 4x4 sparrow/sidewinder loadout, the delta is much more noticeable, up to 2 deg/s in some areas. I think both loadouts exhibit a big spike ~ Mach 0.9 at all tested altitudes.

Sorry, we Canadians often mix up units (Freedom Units aren't really our forté but somehow, we're stuck with them in the aviation industry )

I know a lot of people tell Jester to STFU but I personally love that he's a chatter box! Except maybe that one period of time when you missed the basket during refueling and he actually was on a loop

In one of the other threads, @IronMikementioned that they are wanting to create a better Jester/AI experience by having him sort targets more intelligently and having the pilot confirm the hook or lock preferences rather than micro-managing exactly what Jester's doing (maybe he can confirm if I understand correctly). I think most of us have been really wanting a "hook specific target" and then "next launch", but I'm willing to bet that there's something even more awesome (/sinister?) in the works and I'm excited (/scared for the eventual Jester AI takeover)!