Heatblur F-4 Phantom

[G.J.S]

55 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Hey, didn't you guys fly navy versions!? 

FG1 was the “hand-me-down” from naval service, and allocated to a few RAF squadrons when passed over, the FGR2 was the version more specific to the RAF. I never laid hands on the FG1 unfortunately.

[Heatloss]

6 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Hey, didn't you guys fly navy versions!? 

F-4Js with mildly scuffed engines and incredibly scuffed aerodynamics. Nothing against the brits, I know why they did it, but man, that drag was worse than the high camber slats on the F-4S.

[captain_dalan]

Ah, that's why assumed more love would be given to the Naval jets, namely J's! 

[Elf1606688794]

On 10/9/2021 at 1:18 PM, Heatloss said:

Yes. If we got phantoms after 1972, we would have the best rear aspect sidewinder, the AIM-9H.

I loaded AIM-9P's on F-4E's.

[Elf1606688794]

On 12/29/2021 at 5:01 PM, captain_dalan said:

After all these years i still find it hard to understand why people would chose to fly a plane that needs over a mile of runway to land! 

I loaded weapons on the F-4E from Sept '81 -Aug '83 at Seymour Johnson AFB. 

If someone promised an E model with a skin from SJ AFB I'd give them my coin right now. Especially if that tail number was from the 336th or 337th Fighter Squadrons. I spent time in the aircraft maintenance units for both squadrons.

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Elf1606688794
Fixed squadron numbers, memory was a bit defective after nearly 4 decades.

[Heatloss]

6 hours ago, Elf1606688794 said:

I loaded AIM-9P's on F-4E's.

the 9H was the navy missile, for the F-4Js after 1972. Time equivalent of 9J/N, so before the L.

[Top Jockey]

Regarding "legacy" AIM-9 variants, does anyone wish to share something about the S.E.A.M. (Sidewinder Expanded acquisition Mode) concept in the F-4 Phantom II ?

Thank you.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Top Jockey

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, Top Jockey said:

Regarding "legacy" AIM-9 variants, does anyone wish to share something about the S.E.A.M. (Sidewinder Expanded acquisition Mode) concept in the F-4 Phantom II ?

Thank you.

 

Introduced on the ‘J’ , it allowed an off-bore sight capability by slaving the AIM-9 seeker head to the radar.

[Top Jockey]

2 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Introduced on the ‘J’ , it allowed an off-bore sight capability by slaving the AIM-9 seeker head to the radar.

 

... and supposedly also having another function: allowing the AIM-9 seekerhead to perform a given moving search pattern - something like "Boresight Scan" ?

[G.J.S]

54 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

 

... and supposedly also having another function: allowing the AIM-9 seekerhead to perform a given moving search pattern - something like "Boresight Scan" ?

25 degrees circular scan.

[Top Jockey]

11 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

25 degrees circular scan.

Very good.

A subject which catches my curiosity, although not always easy to find much specific info on it.

(And then, ther's the several different iterations these systems were subject, in different airframes, along the time.)

 

More info on it - from slightly after the middle of the page:

" Air to air control panel (front main pilot's instrument panel). "

 

http://aviation.watergeek.eu/f4j-panel.html

 

[Heatloss]

9 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Introduced on the ‘J’ , it allowed an off-bore sight capability by slaving the AIM-9 seeker head to the radar.

Introduced on the G in the late 60s. I didn't realize that the J introduced it on USAF missiles, I thought it took until later with 9Ps.

[G.J.S]

2 minutes ago, Heatloss said:

Introduced on the G in the late 60s. I didn't realize that the J introduced it on USAF missiles, I thought it took until later with 9Ps.

Apologies, meant the 'J' F-4, not that version of 'winder. Should have been more clear in initial response.

Edited January 3, 2022 by G.J.S

[Heatloss]

25 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

Apologies, meant the 'J' F-4, not that version of 'winder. Should have been more clear in initial response.

 

Ah, yes. That's right, and it was retrofitted to Bs with the N standard. 9G/H and L/M/X have SEAM. I don't think the USAF 'winders had it until maybe 9P-3 at the earliest. I can't find any mention of it in USAF manuals regarding the F-4D/E anywhere.

[ustio]

Whic F-4 variant have ACM radar lock mode?

[Heatloss]

9 hours ago, ustio said:

Whic F-4 variant have ACM radar lock mode?

F-4E,J,S,N,M,K. I am unsure if F-4D ever received a vertical scan mode, but it is possible.

[Andrew8604]

Making just the F-4E would be like making just an F-35A (no vertical landings).  Both of these aircraft need the extra effort from the beginning to produce two versions. 

For the Phantom II, that "should" probably be the F-4E and the F-4J (or the F-4S or the F-4B or N...just one of the naval variants).  I would be happy to have the F-4E first (by the end of '22?...probably not) and then if the naval F-4 could follow within 2 years (I hope).  I mean, if they put full effort into the F-4E with keeping in mind how the systems coding would be different for the 'J', why couldn't they do that?  After the 'E' is out, in release, then produce the 'J'.  Would you all be butt-hurt if they even used 97% the same flight model as the 'E' for the 'J'?  How many of you out there even knows the difference?  Maybe the 'E' has a slightly higher top speed?  Not when you have ordnance hung underneath, though.  The cockpit framing shape/dimensions between the 'E' and the 'J' should be identical.  Do they use different ejection seats?  They're the same, aren't they?  Or very close?  The radars are different, that's for sure.  But some of the A-to-A and A-to-G modes must be the same.  The back seater in the F-4E does what?  The back-seater in the 'J' is a RIO, like in the F-14, right?  There are some differences in weapons panels, a few console panels, the fire-control systems.  But fuel, hydraulic, pneumatic and engines should be very much the same, no?

Why was the F-14A and B so much more work?  It couldn't have been like starting from scratch.  The whole 3D model was already there, maybe some slight modifications.  The flight model should be nearly the same.  It had to be all systems changes.  But the F-14 was quite a bit more complex in its fire control system than the F-4, wasn't it?  Could it be that the F-14A was something like 35% of the work of the F-14B, when HB thought it was only going to be 10%?  Something like that?  Sell the Phantom II's separately!!  $79 for the 'E', $79 for the 'J'.  Or both for $129.  Then offer the 'E' at pre-sale for $69.  And the 'J' at pre-sale for $59, but only after the 'E' is past early-access.  The 'E' and the 'J' should be understood to be different enough that you have to pay for both.  I think it's clear from this forum that there are two groups of Phantom Phans here...they're going to purchase their favorite version...and most of them will probably purchase both, no matter how much they say, "If it's not the 'E', then it's better if no Phantom at all."  "If I don't get my ice cream cone, then I'm going to hold my breath 'til I pass out and die."  This is the long-awaited F-4 Phantom II we're talking about!  It requires two versions even more than the F-15C / F-15E...much more so than the Fw-190 A-8 & D-9.

[Northstar98]

On 1/15/2022 at 1:02 PM, Andrew8604 said:

Making just the F-4E would be like making just an F-35A (no vertical landings).  Both of these aircraft need the extra effort from the beginning to produce two versions. 

Would you all be butt-hurt if they even used 97% the same flight model as the 'E' for the 'J'?  How many of you out there even knows the difference?

Let's not argue from ignorance...

And what does 97% of a flight model mean?

I mean you could use the same flight model, and then modify it as necessary, data depending.

On 1/15/2022 at 1:02 PM, Andrew8604 said:

Maybe the 'E' has a slightly higher top speed?  Not when you have ordnance hung underneath, though.  The cockpit framing shape/dimensions between the 'E' and the 'J' should be identical.  Do they use different ejection seats?  They're the same, aren't they?  Or very close?  The radars are different, that's for sure.  But some of the A-to-A and A-to-G modes must be the same.  The back seater in the F-4E does what?

In the E, the WSO operates the RADAR, TGPs (AN/AVQ-23 or AN/AVQ-26, depending on block) and GBU-15 (depending on block). You can also fly the Phantom from the rear seat in the E (unsure about the J/S), though you probably wouldn't want to.

Presumably the RIO backseat in the J/S is RADAR and navigation.

And no, the modes aren't necessarily the same, nor must they be.

For starters, the AN/APQ-120 on the E is pulse-only, whereas the AN/AWG-10 is pulse-doppler, so presumably there'll be a PD search mode and a RWS mode, whereas the E will only have pulse-search. Obviously + whatever ACM modes they have (E at least seems to have a boresight mode and a vertical scan mode).

On 1/15/2022 at 1:02 PM, Andrew8604 said:

  The back-seater in the 'J' is a RIO, like in the F-14, right?  There are some differences in weapons panels, a few console panels, the fire-control systems.  But fuel, hydraulic, pneumatic and engines should be very much the same, no?

I mean, general principles sure, but it's not 'some differences', it's completely different, save for maybe a select few panels (IFF and TACAN panels).

The other thing, is that you can fly the F-4E (at least) from the back seat (though you probably wouldn't want to).

On 1/15/2022 at 1:02 PM, Andrew8604 said:

Why was the F-14A and B so much more work?  It couldn't have been like starting from scratch.  The whole 3D model was already there, maybe some slight modifications.  The flight model should be nearly the same.  It had to be all systems changes.  But the F-14 was quite a bit more complex in its fire control system than the F-4, wasn't it?  Could it be that the F-14A was something like 35% of the work of the F-14B, when HB thought it was only going to be 10%?  Something like that?

The difference between our current F-14A-135-GR and F-14B is the following:

• Engines (Pratt and Whitney TF30-P-414A in the A compared to the General Electric F110-GE-400 for the B)
• EIGT engine instruments in the B, replacing the analogue tapes.
• Minor changes to the 3D model, (engine nozzles).

Everything else is the same.

On 1/15/2022 at 1:02 PM, Andrew8604 said:

Sell the Phantom II's separately!!  $79 for the 'E', $79 for the 'J'.  Or both for $129.  Then offer the 'E' at pre-sale for $69.  And the 'J' at pre-sale for $59, but only after the 'E' is past early-access.  The 'E' and the 'J' should be understood to be different enough that you have to pay for both.  I think it's clear from this forum that there are two groups of Phantom Phans here...they're going to purchase their favorite version...and most of them will probably purchase both, no matter how much they say, "If it's not the 'E', then it's better if no Phantom at all."  "If I don't get my ice cream cone, then I'm going to hold my breath 'til I pass out and die."  This is the long-awaited F-4 Phantom II we're talking about!  It requires two versions even more than the F-15C / F-15E...much more so than the Fw-190 A-8 & D-9.

Agreed, and if they're separate modules, I'm okay with that.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Northstar98

[draconus]

On 1/15/2022 at 4:20 PM, Northstar98 said:

Everything else is the same.

Don't be so quick about it. There's also missing engine modes panel in the A, MCB CB option, mach lever test... and probably something I forgot and also some more is planned

[Harlikwin]

On 1/15/2022 at 6:02 AM, Andrew8604 said:

Making just the F-4E would be like making just an F-35A (no vertical landings).  Both of these aircraft need the extra effort from the beginning to produce two versions. 

I mean if you are looking for warthunder level of modeling, yes, but you're still wrong even there. Vague looks aside the AF and Navy phantoms rapidly diverged Aerodynamically, and systems wise. I'm not gonna even talk about the bad-teeth austin powers british F4.

 

 

[Germane]

Apart from which variant we will get, I wonder when there will finally be an official announcement...

[G.J.S]

16 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean if you are looking for warthunder level of modeling, yes, but you're still wrong even there. Vague looks aside the AF and Navy phantoms rapidly diverged Aerodynamically, and systems wise. I'm not gonna even talk about the bad-teeth austin powers british F4.

 

 

True. On the aerodynamic front also - the canopies are different on several versions, as in the coke bottle effect differs. 

[QuiGon]

22 minutes ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Most likely after the Tomcat leaves its EA phase. So hopefully sometime this year.

Provided the F-4 is made by Heatblur... which I doubt.

[Harlikwin]

19 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

True. On the aerodynamic front also - the canopies are different on several versions, as in the coke bottle effect differs. 

Also good luck getting any doc out of the MOD

[Germane]

 

vor 10 Stunden schrieb QuiGon:

Provided the F-4 is made by Heatblur... which I doubt.

Well, there are already some indications. I think its most likely that the F4 will come from HB but of course, we dont know it so far.