Jump to content

Hummingbird

Members
  • Posts

    4261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hummingbird

  1. Only thing I'm slightly worried about is the lack of official EM charts based on RL flight testing to consult. Without this the realism of the FM is going to rely entirely how close CFD testing and physics calcs can get the module to reality.
  2. I'm Danish so can understand what is said. What he's saying is that the video shows the F-16 still can have a good chance against the EF in a dogfight, esp. at low speeds. But like Spectre kind of alluded to, it's not evidence of anything. Infact all it is is a Danish F-16 pilot explaining two pieces of HUD footage to a civilian audience (explaining what the different symbols in the HUD mean along the way), and probably with the main intent of showing that the RDAF's F-16 is still (early 2000's video) a potent fighter that isn't helpless in a DF against the newer ones out there.
  3. It's interesting to see how quick & smooth the slats are to extend and retract in that video, it's a very cool system. Also I wonder, were the leading edge slats on the F-4 variable in their degree of deployment, i.e. would they be half extended at a certain AoA and gradually come out more as AoA increased? or was it either fully in or fully out ? Asking as on for most fighter (for example F-16, Mirage F1 or F-5 Tiger) the degree of leading edge device (flap or slat) deployment depends on the AoA.
  4. I guess the opinions on the slats differ, as so far I've read lots of positives about them from other F-4 pilots. But they were also all airforce, not Navy. Btw, a cool little video showing them in operation on greek F4E:
  5. Did the slatted F-4 engage in any combat in VN ?
  6. I guess it's akin to when the maneuver slats/flaps deploy in the F-14, here you also only notice it when flying slow and level.
  7. I don't know, I just noticed he said "if you're not watching for it, then you wont know they've moved ". But that could be refering to when maneuvering. In the landing pattern, or when flying level at low speed, I can see that it might be noticeable as Kirk says, as here even slight changes to pitch moment & trim are usually noticable.
  8. Interesting, the opposite is mentioned in the instruction video: Or perhaps you're refering to only when in the landing pattern at low speed with flaps & gear down?
  9. Oh didn't know he flew the Phantom, and I didn't want to come across as lecturing, just merely stating the conclusions of the report. There's no doubt the F-4E, esp. the slatted one, was draggier, and lost some speed, that's also outlined in the report. But apart from when landing the report indicates the slatted F4 was just as nice to fly, and more so during maneuvering. In cruise flight it was described as the same as the unslatted Phantoms. In short we should expect a really nice flying aircraft
  10. Hmm... as far as I can read, apart from when landing, then the F-4E is said to be the nicer aircraft to fly -> esp. in maneuvering flight. As I gather it, the reason the slatted E was less comfortable to fly on landing was first of all the increased AoA limiting the forward visibility, and secondly that with gear & flaps down at low speeds a decrease in longditudinal stability and thus increased sensitivity in pitch in a landing approach at 19 units AoA was experienced . Test report: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0904287.pdf Some key take aways: - "Thrust-limited turning performance data obtained during the test program indicate a significant increase above the performance demonstrated during F-4E Category II testing (reference 6). The F-4E Flight Manual for slat-eguipped aircraft should be- revised to indicate the sustained load factor capabilities demonstrated during this test program." - The aircraft pitch response and pitch rate capability at high CN'S were satisfactory, and the increased stick force and deflection needed to attain CN'S greater than 0.9 provided additional security against inadvertently exceeding safe AOA limits. - Simulated air-to-air tracking tests showed that terminal tracking could be effectively accomplished up to 30 units AOA without excessive pilot workload. - Static and dynamic longditudinal stability in the cruise and combat configurations was comparable to that of the unslatted F-4E. However, in the power approach configuration with no external stores and a mid eg position reduced static stability was noted in the 17 to 21 units AOA range. This reduction of reduced stability made precise control of AOA moderately difficult during landing approaches at 19 units AOA - The aerodynamic stall warning characteristics of the test aircraft were generally better than these of the previously evaluated slat configurations, as well as those of the unslatted aircraft. Conclusions: "The two-position slat test results show an increase in turning capability in the subsonic portion of the flight envelope compared with that of the basic F-4E, and were comparable to those obtained with the previous fixed slat configuration, Agile Eagle IV. Flying qualities of the slatted F-4E were basically comparable to those of the unslatted aircraft. Most noticeable in the flying qualities area was the increased maneuvering capability at high angles of attack."
  11. A cool little interview with Mike Sutton regarding the EF and its DACT performance as he experienced it:
  12. Great to hear Cobra! The S would truly be a dream come true (as is the F-4E). I can honestly say I haven't looked as much forward to a DCS module since the F-14 Godspeed on the project!
  13. The lack of inertia I felt a lot in pitch last I tested it, so I'm hoping they will be looking at that as well.
  14. Wait with any comparisons until the F-14's FM is also complete. As Fat Creason has said, adjustments are still needed. When both modules completely match their respective RL EM charts, they will feature a max STR within 0.2 deg/sec og each other, albeit at two very different speeds.
  15. It's a combination of the increase in AoA the LERX permits, which in turn allows the use of the enlarged flaperons (applying TE flaps decreases critical AoA) for a sizeable increase in lift during landing without compromising over the nose visibility.
  16. Yes, that would be from the ability to employ the slightly enlarged flaperons on landing.
  17. Again you're interpreting things incorrectly. "“knife-fight in a phone box” turning capability" --->This refers to low speed high AoA one circle fighting, which is all the AMK kit is going to help with, not sustained turn rate. In short it's all about providing a higher nose pointing ability (i.e. higher AoA limit) at low speed, which apparently most operators of the EF don't find necessary as the EF maintains a general advantage in ITR & esp. STR over most other fighters. Also keep this in mind: The lower the wing loading, the lower the lift coefficient, and thus AoA, is needed in order to generate the necessary lift for a specific load factor -> this is the general principle the EF lives on. In other words the EF can generate the same ITR at a lower AoA than many other fighters.
  18. You're basing that belief on your interpretation of a single article. The EF doesn't struggle below 10 kft, the F-16 & Rafale face the exact same "problem", i.e. all three got so much performance that down in the thicker air the squishy meatbag in the cockpit is the limiting factor, not the aircraft. In other words pilots in these three are going to find it extremely difficult and uncomfortable to fight each other below 10 kft, as all three aircraft will sustain 9 G's with ease down there. However as you go higher and the air gets thinner, and thus less G's can be sustained, that's when you start to see aircraft performance making a big difference.
  19. Haven't tested the STR since the update, so can't comment on that. I did hear a higher AoA than before is now required for level flight though, which is curious.
  20. A 1973 Ps chart for the slatted F-4E for comparison: As you can see the slatted F-4E achieves a higher STR at a ~2,000 lbs higher weight (e.g.: 5.3 G vs 4.9 G @ M 0.6 & 6.4 G vs 5.8 G @ M 0.7). And here VN charts for comparison of ITR at equal weight (dated 1969 & 1973) between an F-4E with slats and an F-4J without (hard wing F-4 stalls at ~25 units AoA, the slatted F-4 @ ~30 units):
×
×
  • Create New...