Kirk66

As long as you kept your speed up and managed to get the F-5 slow, you could out accellerate it. But if you both were slow - forget it! But down low after a slashing pass, plug in both burners and unload as long as you can before the rocks are a problem - the old Rhino could move out (but not for long...)

To answer SgtPappy's question - not really with the 36/37, that was during RTU at Luke and I think we had SA-2 or 3 simulators, possibly some AAA. Operationally in the E with the later ALR-46 we went against all the usual Red Flag threats so saw plenty of 6s. Also a lot of A-bars when going against the aggressor F-5Es, as they loved using their little radar to try to make us react and let them arc us when we were extending out of a fight - it was their only chance as we could easily outrun them and get out of gun/heater range if we didn't take the bait! If you did turn back thinking the F-5 was close, you were guaranteed to get pipper burns on your helmet when the F-5 arced in for a tracking gun shot.

Quick comment on F-4 RWR equipment. The early USAF F-4Cs that I trained on had APR-36/37s (I think) that had strobes pointing to the threat radar, along with a tone that indicated the seriousness of the threat. The length of the strobe indicated strength/pseudo range. The strobes were also different depending on the type of threat (AAA, SAM, fighter radar). The later F-4Es had a later system (ALR-46) that had different tones and symbols instead of strobes. Vulture

And some of this could be what kind of joystick/throttle/rudder pedal setup you are using in DCS, as well as VR vs flatsceen. Trying to AAR with the keyboard? Probably not a good idea (but IDK, never tried it!). I just know that with my Virpil stick and throttle, the M-2000 is pretty easy to refuel, and using my FSSB F-16 sidestick, the Viper is also pretty easy to get into the contact position and take on fuel. YMMV! AAR (and any close formation) really stresses being able to make very small corrections to stay on the boom or in the basket. Flailing around against a Warthog spring and stiction without an extension would definitely make it harder. Not impossible, just harder.

Alpha is totally correct; AAR in DCS (in VR, flat screens just plain suck) is pretty easy and actually fun; IRL it's harder and nobody honestly enjoys it but you do what you gotta do. There is a Mover video on an F-16 fatal accident at Shaw AFB a few years ago that covers this pretty well. On the boom, at night, in a turn, in a cloud, with all your friends watching - stress, what's that? "Relax, wiggle your toes, stop trying to squeeze the trim button off the top of the stick, just fly formation...OFFLOAD COMPLETE...thank god - disconnect!" Then again, hanging out in the observation position on the KC's wingtip watching your buds take their turn flailing around or being abused by a rookie boomer ("JUST STICK IT IN THE HOLE ALREADY!") did somewhat make up for it. A lot more fun and relaxing in DCS.

New Build: i7-13700K vs i9-13900K for VR? Planning on a 4090 and 64GB of DDR5. Currently on a Rift S but planning on upgrading to a Quest Pro or similar to go with the new build. Only use is simming (DCS, IL-2 GB, MSFS, AFS 4) so productivity is not a concern. Does the i9-13900K have a significant (as in actually visible) advantage over the i7-13700K? Also, what kind of CPU coolers are you guys using for your i9-13900K and i7-13700K CPUs? Cheers, Vulture

It's going to be fun trying - from both seats! I hope the feel of the CG change when filling up a 3-bag jet is reproduced; feeling the jet get more stable as the tanks filled up was interesting. Cheers, Vulture

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Tanking from the pit was not a problem; even as a WSO I was able to do it. During normal refueling, the WSO watched the boom and could tell the pilot when he was in the proper fore/aft position; once connected, he watched the "barber pole" marks on the boom and kept the pilot in the correct positon with trend information - much more accurate than the lights. Remember the director lights were made for big aircraft - bombers and transports. There is a funny story about an F-4 crew that wanted to play a joke on their tanker; the WSO (who was pretty experienced) setup his flight jacket so it looked like he had his hands up on the canopy bow (where WSOs usually kept them) while he actually flew the jet - you can't see the back seat controls from a tanker; meanwhile the pilot also had his hands up on the mirrors, occasionally waving at the boomer. So from the boomers perspective, it looked like the F-4 just flew itself into position and refueled, unassisted. I REALLY wish I had a picture of that! Vulture

I realize that this is early days for the upcoming A-1 module (immediate purchase!), but so far the images show an AD-4, not an A-1H (AD-6). Obvious differences are the wing pylons and antennas. This actually looks like the AD-4 on the warbird circuit that is made up to look like a VN-era A-1H. Good starting point, but... That being said, it would be nice to have both the Korean vintage AD-4 and the later VN-era AD-6/7 (A-1H/J), external differences are pretty much just the pylons and various antennas (and period weapons/liveries); the cockpits would be a bit different of course due to later avionics in the later Spads. Anyway, looking forward to this plane! Vulture

Well the pictures released so far do not show an A-1H, they are more like a late AD-4; definitely not VN era! Easy way to tell is the size of the inboard weapons pylons; the AD-4 has small, rounded ones, while the later AD-6/7 (A-1H/J) have much larger, pointed ones. AD-4 is Korea timeframe, and in the AD-4N version, much used in Africa by France and it's allies. It would be nice to have both versions, main differences aside from pylons would be antenna layouts. Either way, immediate purchase for me! Vulture

So shipping in CONUS is $20 or so. To Victoria it's $60 - $70. Does $210 shipping paid sound fair?

Let me check with my local shipping store and I'll let you know. Probably tomorrow. Cheers

Where in Canada? Hudson bay, might be iffy... Seriously, what city and I'll check. Vulture

Selling an almost new Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet grip. Got it for the F/A-18 and AV-8 modules, but turns out I prefer the F-16 grip and rarely fly the Hornet or Harrier, so selling it so someone else can enjoy it. Only used for a few flights in the Hornet, comes in original packaging, will include the display stand it's been attached to for the past 2 years. $180 including shipping anywhere in CONUS. BONUS: throwing in a nice black 15cm Sahaj extension; when used with his Blue spring and some Nyogel makes the Warthog stick a pretty good approximation of the real thing. And yes, I have flown the real thing (although not specifically the F/A-18; though I did fly the RCAF's F/A-18 sim at Cold Lake a long time ago). I hate to see this nice hardware just sitting on my bookshelf. Vulture

I use VRNecksafer with my Rift S in IL-2 GB with no issues (start Steam VR - which starts Oculus, then start VRNS, then start IL-2 in VR, and VRNS works fine). However, when I try to use VRNS in DCS, I cannot get it to work. Is there a trick to running non-Steam DCS Beta with Steam VR? Any help would be appreciated; I really like VRNS and want to see it work in DCS badly! Cheers, Vulture Edit: Problem solved via Skatezilla's app. Works great now. And a comment for the "purists" who think it's cheating in VR: In a real cockpit, you can grab something and turn around to check six; some planes have handles on the canopy bow just for this (F-15s. for example, the E even has a huge grab handle across the top of the WSO panel!). Makes a huge difference (Source: BTDT IRL). Also, VR FOV limits. So if you have a full up simpit, sure, it's a bit of a cheat, but still nowhere near as bogus as a headtracker on a single screen - that's just plain wrong! Vulture

Need some help please. Trying to setup VRNecksafer for non-Steam DCS, Rift S. I have no trouble setting up VRNS in IL-2 GB and it works great, but cannot get the manual rotation to work when I launch DCS in VR. I have SteamVR running, Oculus running, DCS starts and works in my Rift S, but no rotation when I command via HOTAS buttons. I have app mode set to BACKGROUND, game mode to AUTO, position compensation to IN SEATED MODE, and manual rotation selected with buttons set for VR center and L/R rotation. Is the sequence of activation important? Cheers, Vulture

Thanks all for the responses; I went ahead and got the matching RAM sticks for 64gb (cheap) but I think I will wait to make a new build when the i7-13700kf/DDR5 and RTX 4080 generation is out. Hope the dollar is still high! Cheers, Vulture

My current rig is an i7-7700k, GTX 1080ti 11gb, 32gb (2x16) DDR4-3200 RAM, all SSD drives, and a 750 W PSU. Mainly play SP in VR on a Rift S. Thinking of a mid-life upgrade while waiting for next gen of VR headsets/CPUs/GPUs/magic. Looking at upgrading the GPU to a 3080ti, and bumping RAM up to 64gb by adding two additional sticks of the same 16gb RAM. Question: will my CPU be a bottleneck (it is mildly pushed to 4.8), and will my PSU be big enough? Thanks in advance, Vulture

The LE slats were either in or out, no intermediate position; activated by AOA: when AOA increased to 11.5 units, the slats extended, when AOA reduced below 10.5, they retracted. So for giggles (or demo) you could pull until the slats came out, then relax the pull until they came in, and watch then cycle in and out. Whole process was smooth and easy; no big deal once you had seen and felt it. Also, when you put the Slats Flaps switch to the OUT or OUT AND DOWN position, the slats would extend. Vulture

OK, some context. That video clip if from a training film that was used to introduce the slats mod to F-4 aircrews, so it's biased towards the advantages of the change. The slats definitely could be felt when they opened and closed in the effectiveness of the elevator; there is even a warning in the Dash-1 about maneuvering near the AOA where they open as they can cause a pitch overshoot when they open. But that was acceptable for the decreased chance of an departure at high AOA due to use of the ailerons. There was a school of thought that held that the slat mod actually decreased the combat effectiveness of the F-4 in the hands of well trained pilots since it added weight, complexity, and drag to the jet; the increased turn performance was probably due as much to the slotted tail as the slats and the fact that you could get closer to the departure point due to the "softer" departure characteristics. However, in actual combat against it's main adversaries (Mig-21s, Mig-19s, Mig-17s) in VN, the biggest advantage of the F-4 was it's speed and power; a turning fight was not recommended (it was a classic energy fighter, if you will). So slowing it down to let it turn a bit better was not universally liked - see the Brit M and Ks, the US Navy Js, and the Japanese EJs (which kept their hardwings to the end). But the slats DID cut down on losses due to out of control departures by ham-fisted, poorly trained USAF pilots who were yanked out of C-141s and stuffed into F-4s and sent to war with little air-to-air training; the Navy didn't have the same issue - due to their greater emphasis on air-to-air training at the time. When the primary role of the F-4 changed to mud beating, the slats made sense - sucks to depart at the top of a pop! As far a slats moving in the pattern - not an issue as they were linked to the gear and flaps. And during normal cruise, they stayed in. I hope eventually we get a Navy F-4J to compare (and I know the last F-4S's had slats - but that may have been to get them on smaller carriers?). And I really want to trap a Navy Phantom! (cuz I will definitely try the E on a boat ASAP) Vulture

Small correction - you could lock the slats IN (via the Slate Override switch). Again, only used if for some reason you were at a speed where the slats were cycling in and out, which was not normal. More common was to leave the Flaps/Slats switch in SLATS, which effectively locked the slats out. This was not normal - usually caused by the pilot inadvertently not fully raising the Flap/Slat switch after a formation takeoff on the wing, and would cause the jet to be noticeably slower in formation (requiring a lot more power), usually leading the WSO to politely suggest to his pilot to put the fucking Slats/Flaps switch UP! And to make clear, the effect of the slats opening and closing wasn't huge, but it was noticeable, which it why you didn't want them cycling in and out (due to a malfunction, for example). Vulture

Just to clarify on F-4C vs F-4E flying characteristics: the "hard wing", BLC F-4C was basically the same as the original Navy F-4B, designed to takeoff and land on carriers, then go fast and intercept bombers. As such, it had good takeoff and landing handling; in the pattern with the gear and flaps down 9 (and BLC), it was very speed stable; on final you could trim it up and it would hold speed hands off - you then controlled descent with the throttles and drove it onto the runway. Easy. Flying around, it was light, had pretty good vis forward from the pit, and as long as you knew how to handle it's adverse yaw departure characteristics, was easy to maneuver. The biggest gotcha was trying to roll while turning/pulling Gs - if you used aileron, you would get a strong adverse yaw response, to the point that if you were pulling hard enough, the jet would violently (as in bounce your head off the canopy) depart in the opposite direction of your aileron input. OTOH, if you kept the stick centered and just used the rudders, you could easily do point rolls while loaded up. Or, you just unloaded to zero G, rolled fast with ailerons to the desired bank, and pulled back into your desired G. The introduction of the slatted (and unblown) wing on the E (and not all Es; the Thunderbirds flew hardwing Es, and the Japanese EJ were hard wing till the day they retired) reduced but did not eliminate the adverse yaw departure problem (but it still rolled better on rudder), and along with the slatted tail and bigger engines, gave it better turn performance, but the handling qualities suffered a bit. At low speeds and in the pattern, it felt "looser" and was a bit less speed stable on approach (which was about 10 knots higher than the hard wing BLC jets). Also, while flying, the operation of the slats could be felt; if you were stuck at the speed where they were cycling in and out you could lock them out to prevent the annoying pitch input they caused. All this being said, the E was by FAR a better fighter/weapon system! But if someone was going to give me a brand new F-4 just to fly around on Sundays, I would probably take a C - and have the backseater keep his knees together when the stick was back. (yes, we were actually told to do that). Just for comparison, I had one flight in a CF-104 (two seater) at Cold Lake - it was nicer to fly in almost all respects than the F-4 (aileron rolls of course, but also loops - which really surprised me!) and had great visibility from the back seat. And approach speed was actually pretty close to our F-4Es - unless you were doing a no flap. My RCAF pilot showed me a no-flap (at Edmonton, I think?) and the approach speed was impressive! It's going to be a fun module, for sure! Vulture

Google "Keith Ferris Mig Sweep". That image is PERFECT! Slick nose C, AIM-7Es and AIM-9Bs, WSO checking 6, AC lag rolling onto the Mig-21s 6 for a Fox 1 or Fox 2. Extra points for showing the stab hard up and the rudder hard over to the right...and no aileron or spoiler deflection. We do need that - the hard wing C was actually nicer to fly (most of the time) and faster than the later E. Was a lot easier to land from the pit! Vulture

Meanwhile, back to the AIM-4...They were also used by Swiss on their Mirage 3S - anybody know how those were regarded? The Swiss usually don't get bad equipment... Vulture

Thankyou - happy to share some great memories while I still have them! Vulture