LanceCriminal86

You're not the only long range shooter on the block. The ballistic coefficient of the bullet itself plays a large part in how that energy is retained, and not all previously "popular" long range bullets actually have that great of a BC. Case in point, the .50 BMG for a while was somewhat pressganged into being a long range sniper round, yet for most things it's easily outclassed by the .338 LM. Longer, skinnier bullets have less drag and tend to be more stable. The .338 LM is a longer and narrower bullet than the typical .50 BMG ball or even match bullet, has less weight, and yet is a more stable and accurate round with excellent BC. There are other bullets in .224 that easily do 1k plus yards, and some 6.5mm bullets do better than others. Length, diameter, and bullet shape are all part of it. And if you haven't looked at the back of the Phoenix it's a straight body from behind the nosecone to the end, it doesn't have a boat-tail like a bullet. That reduces the missile's drag coefficient as well, which has been illustrated in the discussions about the plume effect while the motor is burning reducing drag. No burning motor, more drag. The NASA data shows that the Phoenix is a big missile with not a great "ballistic coefficient", and once the motor is down that drag catches back up.

So, full MIL thrust @450 or so? Did you shut off the ECS to verify as well?

Yeah Naval Phantom probably will be sometime after the A-6E, which is currently last in line. I wouldn't totally rule the Draken out either, we already know it gets @IronMikehot and bothered. And the F-4E release surprised even people that work with HB on a daily basis. Hell I sorta knew it was happening and supplied some reference pics, and had zero idea that trailer was about to drop, or that it was happening this year.

Between talking to a couple of RIOs and reading some NATO AAR docs, the probe light isn't intended to be like a headlight on a car. The tanker itself has lighting (with the layout depending on the AC), and the probe light generally helped out to about ~20 feet from what I was told. Ambient light and lighting from the tanker obviously would +/- that, but it sounded like the visibility is somewhere in-between where it is now (practically in the basket) and what some folks want to see (totally illuminating out to precontact). So, aircraft like the S-3 and future KA-6, it's going to remain a challenge, but the probe light should help some there since you have to be in pretty close anyways tanking off of those jets. With KC-10s, British Tristars, KC-135s, and I believe KC-130s, some had illumination actually in the basket, while others had ambient lighting and spotlights underneath the aircraft to provide illumination of the basket and hose between the tanker and tankee. I don't know if we currently have it but depending on dates, some tanking baskets should have illumination, either illuminated strips like formation lights, or actual lights behind the basket that would make it "glow" a little.

He actually had done part of the summer down at Pensacola so he had water survival and ejection seat qual done. One of the big reasons he got to even have his name in the hat. He's won exactly two raffles in his life. The first was at Pensacola and got an extra T-2 flight and stick time, and the second being the Phantom hop, on which he actually took Bill Lindner's flight that day because his pilot was an Air Force exchange pilot and per Bill that's who he was usually paired with. He originally was wanting to go aviation then got hit with our family eyesight genes. Away went the distance vision and 20/20. Same happened to me at almost exactly the same age. One day I realized while driving that I couldn't read the road signs on I-95.

My dad got a ride in an F-4B with VF-14 in '72 off the Kennedy, and to this day it's the most exhilarating thing he ever did. Growing up he always told me about Phantoms, and even though had he been on the Kennedy only 3 years later he could have had a Tomcat ride, he said he'd never change a thing. When they showed up at the Naval Academy for a tour in '69, their bus parked next to a Phantom that was on display. He always remembered that the Phantom was larger than a Greyhound Bus and it always stuck with him how ridiculous it was that a plane that big was that fast. I'm just hoping a "J" comes out in time for me to give him a "ride" soon enough, but I know it will probably be well after the Tomcat wraps, the Eurofighter is released, Intruder, and then a few years after that probably.

Desert Storm and any of the incidents where a cruise got extended like that for months are definitely examples where you'd see a lot of the CC, boot grime by the canopy, and the paint fading.

Oh I have, I have some of those very photos I was looking at. But not all of them were THAT extensive in coverage as 212. It would make sense that extended cruises would also result in more CC being potentially necessary. There's also instances where it appears some jets received more thorough repaints or touchups of their TPS potentially during the cruise, or as shown other colors were used for the CC. That VF-84 pic being a pretty clear and extreme example. In the Gull Gray era the CC paint probably matched the base coat more closely, perhaps they were using up existing stocks of paint for CC through the 80s, leading to the more extreme example of 212 that seems to have every other panel and panel line painted. But other cruises, other squadrons, and even through the 90s and 00s I haven't seen many examples that thoroughly covered with corrosion control. What I'm trying to say is that everything has *context*. Heavy "weathering", corrosion control, stencils painted over, all the kinds of things some guys like to see are a progressive thing over the span of a cruise.

Even just on its own, the F-4J covers a lot of territory. Mid-1960s all the way up to the early 80s, applicable not only to all 4 of the Forrestal class but any of the other conventional US carriers, the Enterprise, and even the Nimitz. As interesting as the S would be, it wasn't a major player on the Navy side outside of the Midway. But if Heatblur were to offer another "twofer" it would potentially offer less additional development than the F-4N, which similarly had a short lifespan in frontline Navy use as the S.

The F-4J and S fit that timeline for late Vietnam and then through the 80s, and the S was an upgrade of the Js so they're a logical pair. The B and N pairing would be a possibility but without as much "longevity", if only by a few years. It looks like the N joined the fleet in '73 and the last were retired from Navy use in '84. '83 was the last active duty cruise. In contrast the J started being delivered in '66 and the S first hit the fleet in '79, the last reserve Navy use being '86 (and last Phantom traps and cat shots. Marines used them until '92 in the reserves. If Vietnam ever actually happens, then it would make sense someday to revisit and do a B and C/D possibly, though even the B and C may have enough divergence in systems and visuals to make that a challenge. As for the carriers: Forrestal had Js from '74 (VF-11 and 31) until a single cruise in '82 with S (VF-74 and 103 aboard, probably the last before their conversion to Tomcats) before her SLEP and 11/31 returned with Tomcats in '86. Saratoga had Js from '70 until they got Tomcats in the '84 cruise (after 2-3 year SLEP overhaul, probably included changes to catapults) with VF-103 and VF-74. Ranger had Js from '68-'79 (VF-21 and VF-154) until VF-1 and 2 came aboard for the '80 cruise. Looks like her SLEP was after the '76 cruise, with one more F-4J cruise in '79 after it so I guess they did retain the ability to launch bridled or with the launch bar. Which makes sense as even with Tomcats and other launch bar jets the old A-3s and A-5s were still operating. And of course Independence had Js from '68 through '80, a ~2 year SLEP, then Tomcats aboard for the '82 cruise. To have more historical carrier use of the F-4S you'd almost have to have the Midway and/or Coral Sea. None of the Kitty Hawks or Kennedy had any cruises with them, nor Enterprise, or any of the Nimitz class. Which kind of stinks, but they were in use by the Marines so you can always include them from land bases or fudge them in a fictional scenario or deployment. Who knows, Leatherneck is including a nice Essex with the Corsair, I suppose it shouldn't be totally out of the question that Midway, Coral Sea, or Franklin could maybe be considered with it. At this time I do not believe HB has any plans outside of completing the Forrestal class.

I provided Cobra photos of Col Olds' helmet (on request) from the USAF Museum and in use (courtesy @hoglan83 on IG) with no context provided for its use. So yes, it is Col Olds' HGU-2 helmet. And I don't believe that was necessarily the upcoming external model or pilot model. But the pilot model will be of that pattern, USAF flight gear with HGU-2 helmet and original straight visor housing, with MBU-5 mask as that's accurate for the late VN and into the 70s. It may be that the models themselves are simply not ready for a sizzle reel but per Cobra's own commentary they decided it was time to lift the sheet because it probably would have been hard to keep it a secret much longer. Who knows, maybe it partly is the external model and pilot gear.

There's some pics of AA-212 looking a lot like that, but for other folks I wouldn't call that typical. I've already got a 1986 skin of them mostly done but was going to hold the Sluggers until I can get VF-74 done up to go with them, and would like to have them come out if/when Saratoga happens.

Have you ever been a pilot with a RIO/WSO in the back?

Thanks! We've got some good discussion going already on some solid USAF choices to start with, as well as some good ones for the foreign operators.

I think that's the perfect point to drop this again, some goofy Texas reserve outfit whooping up on F-15 pilots, in Phantoms: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-us-navy-f-4s-scored-plenty-of-kills-against-then-brand-new-usaf-f-15s-in-mock-air-combat/

I could understand this response if this was the first time its been asked, but Korea has been requested for years, same with Vietnam, and the MiG-15 and F-86 have been longstanding modules.

Rather they simply haven't said anything. And apparently since roadmaps are not a thing they are doing we have no idea if one is ever planned at this point. I don't know if this is a Field of Dreams scenario or the opposite. "Build it and they will come". One might say build a Vietnam map and the developers of VN aircraft will come. Alternately, some might say build the Vietnam aircraft and the map would come. But sadly I don't know if one can put any stock in either of those.

Why expect one when we have 2 existing Korea modules that have been around a long time, yet no Korea map?

But not the A, and the A+ skins need some reworks as well as the HGU-55. Which again will probably come after the external model is corrected, and the early jet models are worked out, and the new pilot bodies are implemented.

I'm well aware of the Trello, I've had some discussions on the topic already elsewhere. Sara isn't some insurmountable task he just wants to make sure it's up to the standards they expect. That said it would only be appropriate to have some VF-74 and VF-103 skins to go with her on launch, which will take us a little bit extra to get done, but right now after the F-4 hypetrain the Tomcat's model and textures are supposed to be getting some focus on fixes and prep for the early variants.

I mean folks said it would be similar to make removable tank pylons on the F-14 but the actual modeling side was not that simple. There appears to be more to it or someone would have just hopped into Substance, slapped a 60 on it, written Sara on the stern and sent it out.

Apparently the harder you look at them the more you realize they were more different than a 59 and 60 painted on the side. I can't remember if the differences are along the flight deck edges or on the island or what but if you're going for accuracy it is a decent bit more work. Then Ranger and Indy I think had slightly different deck and island again from the first 2. Kitty Hawk, Connie, and America are the same way, subtle differences in the islands and deck shape and the areas at the edges. Radar differences I picked up on as well. And then standing off to the side of that was Big John, whose layout is more like the Nimitz but a smidge shorter I think than the rest of her class. So weirdly the undersized existing Stennis is actually not awfully far off. But she did have the deck arrangement that the Nimitz class adopted.

Fine, we'll just call him "Hey A**hole"

The RF-4 throws a slight kink in things. I mean you can probably paint the E to have some fake camera windows but for a "default" or included livery I'm not sure RF-4s are going to fit. But I would love to have an AI RF-4 asset someday....

I just think it's wrong to name a backseater after pilots, and to have an AF Phantom WSO with a Navy name. Find some notable WSO names for the E, and notable RIOs for the Navy. OR Just name it VICTORY, and he's just disappointed in you the whole time.