Top Jockey

I admit I wasn't expecting to see this much division over the different variants of a given airframe (the F-4) ... then it sank in that, for many this is a VERY iconic bird, and the differences between variants are considerable. So, "to each his own" and it shows the highly subjective, personal and completely legitimate reasons why people have their favorites. I also appreciate the iconic Phantom, and for me almost any F-4 is 'the Phantom', as generally speaking almost any F-4 fighter / interceptor capable variant appeals to my liking. (Ok there are exceptions, supposing the only available variant was the RF-4E ... that wouldn't be so much appealing to me.) Personal preferences related to the Phantom, either Air Force, Navy or foreign : - internal gun (not available for Navy) - several Air Force and Navy camouflages - foreign camouflages: Iceland 57th FIS, Royal Navy F-4K (FG.1), etc - the VTAS (not available for Air Force) would be ... outstanding Instant example on how highly subjective people's preferences can be sometimes: Supposing I already have the F-4E, and eventually Heatblur now releases an F-4 variant with the VTAS ... that would be an instant buy for me.

In Open Beta 2.8.6.41363 the ACLS works perfectly most of the times, even in edited missions, with heavy rain, some wind and heavy aircraft payload. (Don't know how is the Carrier deck pitch on those situations though.) Other times it fails to catch a wire, I suppose to mimic that it might not always be 100 % effective in real life ?

Would very much appreciate to augment the F-14's stuctural / metal / wing stress noise a little bit, as in my system it really is near to impossible to hear it. Anyone knows if this is possible ? Thank you.

I suppose when people mention that, it is in a context of: a real life pilot looking at (a majority?) of 'young' PC simmers who ... almost exclusively rely on the modern style HUDs to do everything, take-off, navigation and landing related. Whereas, in more older jets, these technological helps (i.e. the modern HUD with projected symbols), didn't exist.

Yeah, I see the discrepancies on the diagrams ...

Been there, done that (as an armchair sim pilot, obviously), a few years ago. The sim was: Strike Fighters 2: North Atlantic (with the Tomcat) and some other mods / add-ons for the F-4 Phantom II also. Certainly in the F-4's case ... without any velocity vector / flight path marker symbol whatsoever to help. Some quick interesting recall, the Phantom seemed to 'woble' less than the Tomcat (regarding pitch and roll), somewhat more stable, when approaching to land on the Carrier. Regarding your recomendation to turn off the HUD for Carrier Landing in DCS: - well, that is the situation where one discovers for the first time how over-dependent he is on the velocity vector ; - already did it the first time you suggested it some years ago or so, if one pays attention to the several parameters, it can be done without much hassle ... but to consistently catch a wire is another story ; - not nearly as easy as with the HUD and velocity vector symbol help; however landing aboard the Carrier with the HUD turned off, does give a sense of high accomplishment and connection with the F-14 Tomcat.

You know, sadly (in my opinion as I praise realism above all) there's many other people around the forum, mentioning the very same thing you do. I really hope it isn't the true, however many people here claim the MiG-29 and the Su-27's BFM performance in DCS is somewhat clamped in regards to what it is in real life. Specifically, stuf like the delta winged Mirage 2000C being able to maintain a superior sustained turn rate than the MiG-29 don't quite yet convince me.

Seems very good, $5,000 allow you to buy MANY licences at current price ... which you can buy and offer to your friends, Christmas is comming and all that. ... just take the bank card out of your wallet and electronically seal the deal. Sounds reasonable.

Really ... So based on your idea, of what would be a 'reasonable' price for the F-4E, let's say $100 ... What would be for you, a reasonable price for the F-14 A/B module, considering the proportional amount of work, complexity, etc ? ... $180 ? And then pay $100 again, if you want the naval variant of the F-4 Phantom II also ... how many people do you think are willing to spend those amounts of money ?

Thank you, interesting info.

Except for me, as I've learned some old-school F-4 moves with Mr. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham ... And therefore I'll be an F-4 Phantom II ace against most of you in no time ; even with one engine out.

I know we are somewhat off-topic ... But regarding the bold ... come on - the MiG-29's BFM performance already is kind of a disappointment to me in DCS, throwing down my previous expectations (gained from previous less detailed sims and mídia). Not questioning if its performance in DCS is more or less close to Real Life ... but on some aspects it does disappoint me - even the much heavier Su-27 supposedly has better turning characteristics. Not saying it isn't like IRL, but man ... the much vaunted Fulcrum came short on my previous expectations. Also, already once mentioned: in DCS the delta-winged Mirage 2000C is able to sustain turn higher G's than the Fulcrum in similar circumstances. edit Regarding wing loadings, if we start with empty weights, the MiG-29's wing loading is actually lower than F-14 A/B, and even slightly below several F-16C variants. Throwing in some fuel and perhaps 2 x IR missiles, will it change THAT much ?

And then comes the Mirage 2000C : with empty weight around 7.600 kg ... and an almost unbeatable low wingloading.

I somewhat kind of see your point. But that doesn't invalidate that airframes like F/A-18C (and MiG-29A also), can possibly be better than those (in bold) on several aspects in a slow speed dogfight ... edit: F-15 pilot Garry Goff, clearly admited the superiority of the Hornet in slow speed ACM - vídeo below, from 34:30 onwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w877J-B6IXU&ab_channel=AircrewInterview

All this, does bring nostalgic feelings. One of my very first experiences in PC combat flight sim, was indeed in the F-4 Phantom II. Somewhere in the early 90's with the famous "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat".

Phoreign Phantom's speaking : It's a Royal Navy F-4K (or FG.1 if you will), for the corner table here, please. Thank you.

Very good, a little bit of history ...

Interesting, the kind of info I appreciate. Judging by the numbers, i suppose the diagram shows the Sustained Turn Rate in DPS for the Mach number. Also the J-11 would be the Su-30 in this case ?

Thank you @draconus Those are my conclusions also, even tried on typical quickstart not much edited / not very old (past open beta versions) missions. If, in most cases the F-14 can get the Carrier's TACAN signal until near ~ 560 nm or so, on other missions for resons I don't know it can get the Carrier's TACAN signal from more than 960 nm. I suppose ED or Heatblur could look at this.

So might it be (in my case) related to be currently using a Open Beta version ?

Ok, so should this issue be a bug report or what ?

I've been testing with the Hornet in roughly the same circumstances as the Tomcat, and the 'behavior' seems more plausible. ... although with some doubts from my part, as I do not have the slightest idea as how it really works in IRL. - flying at 40.000 ft or above, it appears to get a solid TACAN reference at distances from 430 ~ 450 nm and below - at those distances, it can sometimes get alternate random range readings of many different values, as if it is having difficulty in receiving a good, steady TACAN signal - near 390 nm distance and below it gets definitely steady On the other hand, it can also receive the Carrier TACAN signal at distances as far as 900+ nm ... - even if for only a very small time fraction - it does give correct distance (range) of 880.9 nm from Carrier - as in screenshot below, bearing marker, TKR Carrier code - sometimes an " S " blinks instead of the TKR code - after those very brief moments, the bearing marker may be lost or not, and the range readings get alternate random values again. Concluding: Is it realistic that even for very brief moments, (in good weather, high altitude) the Hornet could capture a Carrier TACAN signal from that far away ?

Not yet.

Yeah, I had the far recolection that it could be around 350 or even less. So, assuming that when out of range from the Carrier TACAN, the info on the HSI (needles and range), as well as the deviation bar at the VDI and HUD should disappear - just like when entering the wrong TACAN channel ? This is probably a bug, as I've managed to get TACAN signal from ranges of more than 950+ nm.

Hello, I went very far from the Carrier, and at the F-14's HSI monitor I keep getting the TACAN direction needles / arrows and the range digits to the Carrier keeps updating also. ... I've managed to go 620 nm from the Carrier and the TACAN info kept updating. - Caucasus Map - F-14A - CVN-74 (no Supercarrier) Can a Carrier TACAN signal get that far IRL ? Wasn't it supposed for the needles and the range digits to disappear after one gets too far away ?