Bremspropeller

You can always nuke a boat. And even if you miss, the resulting wave will leave a mark.

The F-8 had an exceptionally high fuel fraction. It carried around over 9000lbs of fuel internally in the later variants (after the rocket pack was deleted with the F8U-2N/ F-8D, which almost gave another 1000lbs of fuel on top of the earlier 8000'ish), compared to the F-4 with over 12000lbs (about comparable to the Honet*). The F-4 could carry three bags (usually the 600gal centerline-bag for the Navy), but those came at the cost of drag and at least the first couple of versions suffered from heavy g-limits and tiny jettison-windows. The F-8 never flew with external gas operationally. The F-8J could carry two 300gal bags, though (I have only seen flight-test pictures). Think about it this way: The Phantom has two single spool turbojets while the Crusader has one twin-spool turbojet on 75% of the internal fuel. If you think the Mirage F1 is doing well on internal fuel right now, imagine having 200USgal more fuel, a more efficient engine and an even better L/D ratio. _____ *The J79s should be more thirsty than the F404 and the F-4 airframe should have lower L/D than the F-18, so you'll most probably go through the internal fuel quicker than in the Hornet. ====================== Some more food for thought on the F-4E vs F-4J/S discussion (which is a bit misguided IMHO): The Corps and Navy never bothered using PGMs on their Phantoms, as they had dedicated platorms for this job: The A-4 and A-6 in the Corps, the A-4/A-7 and A-6 in the Navy. The Corps and Navy mostly used unguided ordnance during CAS (Corps) or Flak Supression (Navy). The Navy at some point figured out that a fully bombed up F-4 could carry more explosives than an A-4, their dedicated light attacker and supposedly this started a shift in air wing compositions (somebody with more knowledge might shoot this hypothesis down, though). There seems to be a general undertone that the F-4 was a bit too slick to be an accurate (dive)bomber. Might have had to do with the Phantom aircrew's thoughts on dropping bombs and being a crime against their fighter heritage. Haven't heard thoseissues from the Marines, though, so it might have been an attitude-thing with the Navy dudes.

You're certainly correct that by 1979 the F-4S wasn't she sharpest knive around anymore. I wasn't really directing this at you but at the general idea that the aircraft became long in the tooth. I'm just tying to tell the kewl kids that the old lady had a couple of grenades up her purse even at this time As somebody else had written before: To model the F-4 during it's absolute heyday (early-mid 60s) would kind of require modelling it with only crappy missiles and using only crappy tactics.

That is bit of backward thinking, though. The reason why the F-4S came about was the ca$h-strapped Navy running into budget-issues with the F-14 and now having to make-do with a lot fewer fighters than initially envisioned (same for the Marines). Hence the urge to stretch the F-4 a few years farther. If there's SEAM+VTAS, the old girl will have a few tricks up it's sleave. Also, at the time the F-4S came online, the meanest probable foe was a mid-range Flogger or a Foxbat. Both great on paper but somewhat lacky in practice. I wouldn't underrate an F-4S in the early 80s. It certainly has more to it than any contemporary bandit. That only changed when the Fulcrums and Flankers started to come about in numbers, which only happened just before Desert Strorm. Not to be overly pendantic, but there were a good deal of USAF-stock, late-Block F-4Es flying during the latter half of the YKW in the IDF. Bells, whistles and TISEO. Let's not forget that the F-4 gained a good deal of weight during it's lifetime. The Js supposedly had a "heavy nose" compared to the earlier Bs and the Ns didn't have slats but still were a good deal lighter than the S and you'll find pilots who had a preference for that. Fighting a MiG-17 with a J is certainly going to enhance some people's idea of BFM. Gone are the days of putting the lift-vector on the other guy and pulling until they're magicly appearing in one's HUD. And there won't be any magic tricks with the flap-handle... The AF and Navy generally kept to their assigned Route Packs and the USN Packs were arguably a bit "easier", which also was the reason why they had less encounters with MiG-21s, that usually were used in the USAF RPs around Hanoi. By USN standards (certainly to former F-8 drivers), an F-4 was always short on gas. Don't forget that escort missions and airspeeds could be heavily dictated by the strikers. Especially before the ramp-up of the A-6 and A-7, the A-4s were struggling to reach cruisable airspeeds for Phantoms when bombed up. Other escort-missions were just as bad: Vigilantes and Photo-Crusaders were very slick and always had the escorts as bottlenecks for mission-planning. Around the boat or on CAP, the F-4 was always way more fuel critical than the F-8. ==== What's probably usually not being discussed in the Navy vs USAF Phantom discussions is that the Navy had better heaters, starting with the AIM-9D. The IDF used Navy heaters on their AF Phantoms.

Looks like the standard MPRS to me. With CFM motors.

Were there many specific CAS outfits left by that time? Talking about specific F-4 CAS units. Other than Da Nang and Tan Son Nhut, there weren't any USAF F-4 units in-country (I could be wrong, though). IIRC Tuy Hoa and Bien Hoa were both Hun-heavy bases. I think the Huns going out was a result of the ongoing slowing down of the conflict at this same time-frame. Given the Marines on Da Nang and the Navy on Dixie Station and with lots of firepower still in place in Thailand, I think there weren't that many CAS units until the war sped up again in 1972. By that time, the A-7D also was a thing.

We'd have to break down missions and percentages flown by the USAF in country, but I believe the Huns were very heavily used for CAS and for relatively long, once it was clear their gig wouldn't be up north. The Phantoms mostly flew out of Thailand or did have special roles down south. There might have been a few outfits that concentrated on CAS, but I think that was only late/ later in the war.

You'll see a ton of Zunis on the USMC birds, so it can't be an airframe-limitation. That also includes funny configurations with the twin-launchers (as opposed to the quad-pods). Osprey "USMC F-4 Phantom units of the Vietnam War" is a great source here. Page 58 shows a Block 27 Bravo of VMFA-314 in an eighteen-Zuni loadout, which includes four quads and a single twin-launcher on the RH inboard Sidewinder rail. Seems to have been a field mod. It's more of a mission-thing in my book. The USAF was a bit less into CAS (with the Phantom) than were the Marines.

Master Light Switch (oder so ähnlich) umschalten. Ist am Throttle.

Hi folks, with the Gueneau 316 helmet depicted in game, I do have a quirky wish: It would be cool to have both visors (the clear one and the contrasted one) animated with the possibility of toggling either one on or off via two separate controls. A cool touch on top would be the possibility of changing the tone of one visor in the specials menu or the mission-builder: Maybe have the option of a high contrast yellow/ orange/ brown tint. Not sure how prevalent the coloured visors were, though.

If pvp and figuring out who can best hide behind a ridge longest is your thing then you might have a point. If you're more into simming and less into gaming, then your mileage will deviate quite a bit. Let's take things apart: That may or may not be the case. The F1 is as good as both the F-5 and the MiG-21. It suffers in the T/W against the 21, but it can go slow pretty well. It should also be able to out-accelerate the F-5. I have flown mostly against a MiG-21, so I can't vouch too much for it's effectiveness against the F-5. Given my experience in the F-5 vs the MiG, I'd say the Mirage and F-5 should be close enough. When's been the last time you've seen M2 in an F-5? It performs well enough to shoot reliably somebody in the face at 10+ miles (provided you'll have the S530F). You'll struggle to do that in an F-5. Why would you take a tank if you're up PvP against F-5s? You have almost 2000l more gas internally than in an F-5. Why would you take two missiles when going PvP? Squeeze off one and you'll have a weird-a$$ asymmetry. Just take the center missile or leave them home altogether. The F1 can carry the 36-shot SNEB "F1" canisters. That's qite a bit of oomph over the 19-shot 2.75ers the F-5 carries. Doesn't matter that much, but you can deliver that load faster and farther. Plus you get to have a ground mapping radar to play with, so you can scare yourself and do that stuff at night. Some people like a challenge. I also like the autopilot. Having an ILS is a good bonus. So is having dedicated ECM and expendable CM pods, which we'll get. Did I mention the INS and AAR probe? I'd love to see the four winders loadout, but trashing the module because it doesn't come with the feature is a bit...narrow minded.

Technically you can already carry four heaters, though - I should have phrased that differently above Also, the F1 is generally a _much_ more capable aircraft than the F-5. Starts with loadouts, (Super)530s, the Radar, performace, etc. Skipping the module because it can only carry two *heaters* is a bit narrow-minded. Especially when the module is actually four modules in one and with the next big update we'll get an AAR capable INS-bird. Not even talking about the upcoming two-seater and the TV-screen model for the whizz-kids.

Aw yiss! Can't wait to dial upthe INS, plug that thing into a tanker and volley a couple of Supers at some Floggers!

Only Greece (F1CG) and Ecuador (F1JA) had a version that could carry four heaters. South Africa seems to have done yt least trials. It's not an overly common loadout. The 'winders on the outboard wings do come at the cost of the SARHs at the inboard wings. No such thing as free lunch.

A J-7, F-7A/J-7I and even the F-7B is very close/ close enough to a MiG-21F-13 and actually has relevance on two/three maps we have/ will have, as opposed to the late double-delta variant, which has none and which is basicly a poor man's Jeff. It's not that I wouldn't like to fly it - it's just a matter of how much value it creates in the greater scheme of things.

I'm in with the J-7, though I'd prefer it to be an earlier version for usability and stuff. Kind of as a hedge against never having a MiG-21F-13.

Not trying to be a smartass here, but the easiest way around this would be a squadron policy that there are to be no updates on fridays, so all members have a chance to load the update in time. I don't see a reason why taking everybody else hostage should be the best possible solution.

Rick, if I'm not mistaken, that line is part of the San Carlos FOB on the SA map. It would be a cool feature, nonetheless!

LE devices have been fixed with today's patch. I love you guys!

Yes, it came with the latest patch. They also fixed the Sidewinder position.

I guess Christmas came early!

Tanzmatte.

Thread-winner!

I think that's mostly due to the fact the the jets were leased to fill the gap 'till F-111s came online. The Phantoms were then returned to the USAF. Some Phantom voodoo-priest can probably provide a trace of all the serial-numbers involved. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those aircraft were MAP'ed to other customers after being upgraded during depot maintenance. Edit: Wiki says most were upgraded to F-4G standard later. There you go.

That's also a Pratt F100 motor. It just has the turkey feathers* installed. This is what the -229 motors on the E would look like if they hadn't pulled the turkey-feathers: F-15I ____ *panels on the external part of the PW F100 nozzles