Victory205

Sadly, I had no F4 time. Between the Reserves and Fleet, there were maybe six Navy Phantom squadrons left when I got to Oceana. VF74 and 103 finally transitioned to the F14 during my first deployment. Throughout my career, there were lots of former F4 drivers around, almost all of the Fleet CO/XOs had flown them in combat in SEA. Lot's of wisdom, lots of sea stories that had you on the edge of your seat. My primary instructor in Advanced Strike in the TA4J had flown F4's in combat as well, and was also a former test pilot. Very serious and demanding, but fair. He helped my career a lot, probably got me into fighters, but I don't know for sure. The A4 and F4 had similar instruments, which you will find very user friendly compared to the VDI in the Tomcat. My reserve squadron had transitioned from F4's to F14's six months or so before I showed up. Also, VFMA-112 was sitting across the ramp which gave us plenty of engagements and cooperative flying as well using the F4S. The biggest issue we had with the F4 guys initially was getting them to recalibrate the speeds for maneuvers. The Phantom needed about a hundred to a hundred and fifty knots more for similar maneuvers. First time we went to the ship for a mini workout, our CO was "holding" waiting for our Charlie Time overhead the ship at around 350 knots, lapping all of the Tomcat guys sauntering at the normal ~230KIAS Max Conserve. After having to dodge him a couple of times, somebody finally came up on squadron tac and said, "Hey Skipper, slow down, this isn’t an ACM engagement!" The most memorable F4 pilot I had the pleasure of meeting was CDR Ralph Gaither, who spent seven and a half years in Hoa Lo Prison in Hanoi after being shot down as a 23 year old Ensign in VF84. In 1965, he was flying Phantoms off of USS Independence, shot down, and wasn’t released until 1973, right before turning age 31. When I met CDR Gaither he was CO of DWEST Survival School in Pensacola. At the time, was a 23 year old Ensign as well, who suddenly realized that all of my problems seemed awfully small. When he walked into a room, everyone snapped to, and you could hear a pin drop. He also was the humblest, happiest guy I ever met in the USN. I don't think that he ever had a bad day. Right before I got to VF84, the squadron had sent him a plaque, because he had never received the traditional farewell swag after he was shot down. He passed away in 2019. http://veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.php?recordID=71 Hopefully this provides a little motivation and perspective. You're going to love the Phantom when it drops.

No one old enough to play DCS, especially anyone who fancies themselves an adult, should be falling apart over a video game release date. Joking and humor are natural and add to the fun, but drama and victimhood over such banter is not normal. I would add that it's astonishing to see people here who enjoy history participate in the complaining. From avatars and comments, it's obvious that many of you idolize Robin Olds, who overcame enormous obstacles during his career, and constantly demonstrated courage and strong leadership, yet his admirers get pulled into being upset over extremely trivial matters. You would think that studying the lives of such men (look up James Stockdale) would promote resilience and some level of stoicism. Pre-Orders offer a significant discount in return for the uncertainty and inevitable difficulties in software development and release date projections. It’s a welcome opportunity, all things considered.

You gents do understand that whether you apply the astronomical, or meteorological definitions of the seasons, that the Heatblur statement of “F4 Phantom, coming in Winter 2024”, technically includes December, 2024? The only question is did they mean the whole month, or just the winter solstice to the 31st of December? We have a whole baseball and football season to wait.

If anyone is looking, the formation sight lines are “literally” in the NATOPS Manual, starting in Section 9.2, “Special Procedures”. Lots of good information in that section.

That used to be called “knowing how to fly a tactical jet”. A lost art, evidently. It really is simple- 1. Don’t pull too hard. 2. Be smooth with control inputs. 3. At high AOA, center the stick and roll with rudder only. Keep trying until you are proficient in all of the above. It’s a desktop sim, you’re sitting on your arse in a chair that is firmly on the ground. There is no reason to be intimidated or overwhelmed. Learn one step at a time. A bunch of real pilots from my era, who tend to be dismissive of Youtube Hero’s, especially those who vomit every detail of their lives in public, call those two guys, “Loser” and the “Donkey”. We have a bunch of great guys from a time where drama and nonsense is met with acerbic, but hilarious commentary. Cold, but effective, it’s a valuable tradition.

I'm with GJS. If all you are doing is madly typing in coordinates and flying following a line, then you're missing all of the fun. That's why I'm so looking forward to the Phantom, it's going to go a long way towards weaning people off of the crutches, and perhaps, changing their mindset into one of a real world pilot. You can't count on the automation or the INS or even the TACAN. The dirty little secret that you are missing, is that flying an attack or recce run at low level using time, heading and ground speed is a BLAST! I'll probably put up a little paper are TARPS in the F14 forum shortly, on where to find how to do this, and some examples and tips. Otherwise, TARPS from stored point to point in a sim will be boring. Learning to navigate isn't difficult, and it unshackles you from electronics, which results in confidence of knowing that if it all gets taken down, you can still find your way to the target and get home. My guess is that I share a lot of the same, fond memories as G.J.S, sitting around a table, telling sea stories while mission planning with my mates. More later. F4 Learning Curve The F4 is going to be easy to fly for those who know how to fly a regular old airplane. It's easier to land than the F14, it doesn't have the trim changes that the Tomcat has with wing sweep and power inputs, and it has a superior attitude reference in the AJB-7 ADI. You can do a full aerobatic sequence referencing nothing but the ADI. We had a similar instrument, the AJB-3 in the TA-4J, and on a student's first flight in the aircraft, they performed a "squirrel cage" sequence, under the bag, in the back seat. Rolls, loop, half cuban eight, Immelmann, split-S. It's magnificent. The Phantom is going to be a ton of fun. Change your mindset, embrace basic flight tasks like trimming, which become second nature in mere minutes. The F4 is a very straightforward airplane. Everyone I know who flew it loved it.

How long do we have to study before the written test?

The bi-directional pump transfers pressure, not fluid. They use exiting fluid in the system with the failed pump. Transfer pumps are common on twin engine hydraulic control/systems aircraft. They don’t transfer fluid for obvious reasons, a leak in one system would deplete the other. Basically, it’s redundancy for a failed hydraulic pump, not for a fluid leak. They do create a single point failure should the bi-directional pump catastrophically itself fail, which happened to me in an airliner, thankfully sitting on the ramp, waiting for a gate.

Seems like many of you are finally realizing that “fighter pilots” are simply normal people, and are not worthy of Kim Kardashian level celebrity worship. I find myself optimistic this fine day, having discovered that there might be hope for the world after all. Very well written summation, @cheezit. I would add that the reason for the depressing choices on parts support and the upgrade timeline was the result of SECNAV’s insistance on a 600 ship Navy. It turned out to be based on overstated intelligence on the Russian Naval capabilities, but the procurement, manning and maintenance costs of those ships, which spend most of their lives sitting in port and in maintenance, was astronomical. As Reagan and Gorbachev cooled tensions (Defense spending peaked around 1987), and especially after the USSR collapsed and true capacity was revealed and no longer a threat, it was payback time for the USN’s steamrolling of the years of budget dominance. There was a priority of total hulls over total quality present during the time of @Cheezit’s analysis above.

This occurs due to “Mach Lever Shift” of the Mach Lever System. Mach lever shift increases engine idle speed in the subsonic and high AOA regime to provide increased stall margins. Below 0.9 IMN, if AOA is increased to 18 units or more, the CADC input to the Mach lever trim system is replaced by a fixed value equivalent to 1.3 IMN, which spools up the engine automatically, regardless of throttle lever position. It’s modeled correctly.

^^^^This is the way. Find the attitude plus power for the landing configuration for level, the 180 to 90 turn, and final. Then it is a matter of constant adjustments around this values. It’s supposed to be difficult. If I haven’t flown in awhile, it will take at least 5-10 passes to recalibrate the required inputs and corrections. Before attempting a new carrier session, I always begin by practicing level turns, the break maneuver and extended pattern maneuvering until I can consistently make the aircraft do what it needs to do.

How are you HUD cripples going to land the F4J/S on the ship?

Used to dip my wing to salute him when taking off to the south out of KTUS. He was incarcerated in the US Penitentiary down there, just off the end of the runway.

When I say “turn off the HUD” in the landing pattern, it’s because that is the only way that you are going to learn the skills you need to be a skilled (sim) aviator. It’s the same whether you’re flying a desktop sim, a full motion sim, or an actual aircraft. The Navy teaches “Attitude Instrument Flying” from day one. Tiny adjustments result in performance changes in jets due to both higher energy states and simple vector state geometry. One degree of pitch has a higher value at the end of a velocity vector has a larger vertical resultant. Reference the VDI, it’s got better fidelity. Eventually, you can turn that off too, and fly referencing the horizon for tactical flying. Each one G airspeed (or on speed AOA in the landing config) has a corresponding pitch attitude and power setting. For example, at max trap weight, level flight at 15 units AOA in landing config, takes about 10º nose high and 3300 pph fuel flow per engine (this is from memory, it changes slightly as we tweak the FM with each release). This also changes with weight and stores, but it’s relatively minor, a degree or two in pitch and a few hundred pph in fuel flow. It will get you in the ballpark. Same for turning flight, which requires a slight increase in pitch attitude and additional thrust. Practice turns, find out what pitch and power is required for those too. The goal is to be able to take your hand off of the stick without the aircraft pitch attitude changing. Trim will take constant attention, and should become natural and second nature. In the break, is similar, but dynamic since speeds and configuration is changing. Attitude is still the key, and angle of bank is used to control that attitude. As speed decreases, you’ll need more pitch and less bank. The HUD in the F14A/B was not designed to be used as a primary flight instrument. The horizon line, FPM and VSI jittered and lagged, depending upon the quality of alignment. Quality of alignment was usually worse at sea. It was common to have “runaway winds” with a SINS alignment at sea, caused by observables during the alignment. This resulted in the FPM being pegged and out of view. HUDs also overheated and failed, regularly. If you take the training wheels off, then you’ll learn to ride your bike. Note the pitch and power required for a desired speed and configuration. Write them down, be able to reproduce them. You’re life will get very, very easy.

With respect to visual engagements, because of the weapons that the F-4E carried during the bulk of its service, you’re going to have to learn to maneuver to your opponents rear quarter. It’s going to be fun to watch, but the skills required will make you a better ACM driver. No more put the lift vector on, feet on the instrument panel, pull as hard as you can with both hands and pretend that you are ace of the base in your sporty F18. I can’t wait.

You might like Riding Rockets by Mike Mullane. He was in the same astronaut class and has coverage of some of Hoot’s antics at NASA. Entertaining and interesting book that will open your eyes with respect to NASA management. Good friend of mine was a Captain at Southwest and flew with Hoot. He had nothing but good things to say about him.

Hmmmm.

I didn’t correlate which callsign went with which liar. My apologies.

Vince’s “guess” was “30 seconds”, not five as Maxin misquoted. I ran into Aiello in a pilot lounge a long time ago, not too long after he was hired. He had already done a podcast on the F14. I asked him about why he didn’t push back on some of the BS that was already piling up from his interviews. He basically shrugged his shoulders, and the gist was that the show was about entertainment, not a documentary, and he didn’t have the technical expertise to argue against whomever was on the show. I got the drift that the purpose was about clicks and cash, not so much accuracy. He was a NFWS instructor at Fallon by the way, a very different course and mindset than Miramar in the 1970’s and 80’s. The interview does highlight one aspect that is ignored by Tomcat lovers. The F14 was unreliable in comparison to the newer fighters coming online, which was the main driver of its retirement. Everyone points to Dick Cheney as some sort of Darth Vader character, but had the Tomcat had 85% FMC numbers and maintenance man hours in the teens, we’d still by flying the F14E/F strike fighters today. My view is that to achieve Gen 5 reliability, the entire F14 airframe would have had to have been gutted with redesigned systems (not all) and updated avionics. Possible, but costly given the changes in threat and focus when the decision was made. One of the RIO’s in our squadron ended up making RADM, and was a CAG, XO of USS Constellation, held posts in OPNAV in Air Warfare, and Commanded THIRD FLEET. He mentioned that Tomcat maintenance became a morale issue. The Hornet wrenches were sitting around their shops playing cribbage and acey-duecy, while F14 troops worked all night to get enough jets up to make the flight schedule for the next evolution. It was Naval Aviators, based on operational and cost considerations, working in the groups described above, who ultimately made the recommendation to kill the Tomcat.

For perspective, the Space Shuttle accelerated at ~3G on its way to low earth orbit. The fantasy F14B in the video could almost keep up with it below the troposphere.

The rule of thumb is (1.22 * sqrt of the delta height in feet). This returns the distance in miles, either divide to convert distance to NM or use 1.06 as the coefficient in the formula. Is the curvature of the earth modeled, or is it “flat” in DCS? The TACAN emitter is located on the mast on the carrier, at least 200 feet above the water as well. Guessing that isn’t modeled either. I’ve not checked to see if TACAN is masked by terrain either. TACAN operates on frequencies limited to line of sight.

They’re both full of <profanity>, and take you for fools. You should be angry at them for lying. Since the claim was instantly suspect when this video was brought to my attention, I ran the accel numbers months ago, and the result is commensurate with the G loading on a Cat shot off of a C-13-1 steam catapults found on Nimitz class aircraft carriers. If true, then generally speaking, the F14B performing an afterburner takeoff would be able to accelerate from 0-140 knots in 310 feet…without using the catapult The strange aspect was the exactness of the claim of “9.7 seconds”, which would have had to have been timed with a personal electronic stopwatch since the analog aircraft clock isn’t that granular. Why people do this is beyond me. Out of curiosty, I ran accelerations in the HB version of a clean F14B. -At 3000 MSL in level flight 150-610KIAS took 34 sec. -At 8000 MSL, with a zero G unload, it took 27 sec. -At 18,000 MSL, pointing the aircraft at the center of the earth, unloading to zero G, it took 17 secs (the distance required resulted in crashing into the water). -A clean DCS F16 for comparison, with it’s superior thrust to weight, using those setups took 30/24/20 seconds respectively. To achieve anything close to the claimed performance, we would have to triple the acceleration rate of the Heatblur F14B. I want to be in the room when @IronMike approaches @NineLine with that proposal. I was already working to address this claim with more detail is on my list for an article, but so far, there hasn’t been any determination by Heatblur on setting up a venue for it. I may look for an alternative, since the goal is to preserve the true technical aspects of the aircraft and how it was flown that will outlast me, long after I’m gone. Props to the gents here who smelled the BS and broke out their calculators- JoNay, Spurts, JCTherik, et al. Well done. Bonus Question: To triple the current acceleration, what increase in thrust would be required? Don’t worry about ram effects since they cancel out, what’s the general magnitude of the required increase?

Turn off the HUD.

Thank goodness that Jester isn’t British. I’ve had the pleasure of flying with an FAA/RAF exchange RIO/WSO on several occasions. This is what it sounded like-

There was a famous, within the Navy, incident during WWII where an isolated young pilot was getting shot up by a swarm of Zeros, yelling over the radio for help. Nothing could be done for him, and he was garbaging up the frequency, blocking critical calls, so one of the grizzled veterans calmly transmitted, "Shut up and die like a man". It's detailed in "First Blue" by Butch Vories. I never flew with anyone remotely as goofy as Jester. While most fighter personalities trended towards cynical humor on the ground, in the cockpit, it was all business. Once the deck crew began to break down the chains on your aircraft prior to launch, and until you were safely off of the flight deck after the recovery, the tone was calm, serious business. There was a lot to do and think about, and no yelling, screeching, or infantile distractions were tolerated from either cockpit. Had nothing to do with being "Mr Perfect", and everything to do with being a professional aviator. Apart from humor, there was an expectation of comms cadence and compliance with ROE and tactics. Leo the RIO's blathering and behavior from the second Gulf of Sidra incident was widely panned throughout the community. The wingman's behavior was calm and professional, but the inter cockpit tape wasn't released to the public as far as I know. You can still hear the difference between the two crews on the flight lead's audio. The reputation's earned for life in the aftermath between the two aircraft were very different. Jester is a valuable solution for an aircraft that is heavily crew coordination dependent being flown solo, but his "attitude" is obviously an artistic interpretation, based on the Hollywood expectations of what a RIO should act like, and an attempt to entertain an audience comprised of gamers with corresponding maturities. I hear more silliness from kids crashing their modules into bridges and ships than I do from Jester, but I find both annoying to some degree. Maybe some old grizzled fighter pilot should tell both of them to “Shut up and die like a man…”