F-4E, please

[upyr1]

30 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

AN/AVQ-10 Pave Spike and AN/AVQ-22 Pave Spike were both 1st generation TV + 12k ft LTD/R.

But from the early 80s there was also the AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack which is 1st generation FLIR + 12k ft LTD/R.

Everything will carry over. 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

That would be opening up Pandora's box. In the end, does it really matter? Everyone will make-do anyways and we'll see RAF markings on an F-4E.

The Spanish, the Finns, the Kuwaitis, and the Aussies didn't get their variant of the Hornet. The MiG-21 we got is Serbian. The Viper is a veritable Pokedex of marks and upgrades with export customers and even domestic use. Even the F-5E we got is a specific F-5 that really isn't a combat aircraft and more of DACT bird without the combat capability of other F-5s.

Teams have a hard enough time supporting modules. ED has basically forgotten that the F-5, F-86, and MiG-15 exist. The last thing they need is more workload. PilotMi8 put it best when asked about the UH-1N as an upgrade to the UH-1H and that just because airframes are variants of the same family doesn't necessarily translate into a simple development.

 

This box was opened when we got our first module with multiple variants such as the F-14.

I am under no impression that developing multiple versions will be a quick and easy task. Which is why I am saying that there should be a pricing plan for variants based on how much work it would take existing code and develop a new variant. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

4 hours ago, upyr1 said:

This box was opened when we got our first module with multiple variants such as the F-14.

I am under no impression that developing multiple versions will be a quick and easy task. Which is why I am saying that there should be a pricing plan for variants based on how much work it would take existing code and develop a new variant. 

No, it really wasn't. The F-14A was included with your purchase. It was planned out. HB also has a nice set up as professionals. Other teams lack this entirely and ED has the added burden of platform support.

Edited December 4, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

No, it really wasn't. The F-14A was included with your purchase. It was planned out. HB also has a nice set up as professionals. Other teams lack this entirely and ED has the added burden of platform support.

 

You have actually gone and made a very good argument for a variant pricing model. There are some variants that are quite close and it makes sense to sell as one package and there are others which are really not that close. Then some teams have a larger work load than others. The chances of having multiple Phantoms or any other aircraft for that matter, will come down to the amount of work and expected sales. There are some aircraft which I don't expect to see much interest beyond one variant others like the F-4 have a lot more fans. Anyway, from the perspective of the developers whether or not there would be interest in producing multiple variants will come down to the resources spent and projected return. However for us the consumer the chances of buying multiple variants will come down to how much we like the aircraft and the price. So as I keep saying, if Eagle introduced some sort of a pricing module where people who buy version A can get a discount if they buy version B based on how much the developers think the two differ. If the developers think they have the resources and get enough sales to support both models in a single module, they would still do so but if they think they need to sell it then they would be able to do that, I would just be asking for a discount based on commonality. 

Edited December 4, 2021 by upyr1

[bies]

Heatblur makes different variants, AudioDev/Aerges makes different variants, Razbam makes different variants, Polychop makes different variants, even one of ED stuff stated in the interview ED is considering making "everything F-4" variants.

Just saying

Edited December 4, 2021 by bies

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

You have actually gone and made a very good argument for a variant pricing model. There are some variants that are quite close and it makes sense to sell as one package and there are others which are really not that close. Then some teams have a larger work load than others. The chances of having multiple Phantoms or any other aircraft for that matter, will come down to the amount of work and expected sales. There are some aircraft which I don't expect to see much interest beyond one variant others like the F-4 have a lot more fans. Anyway, from the perspective of the developers whether or not there would be interest in producing multiple variants will come down to the resources spent and projected return. However for us the consumer the chances of buying multiple variants will come down to how much we like the aircraft and the price. So as I keep saying, if Eagle introduced some sort of a pricing module where people who buy version A can get a discount if they buy version B based on how much the developers think the two differ. If the developers think they have the resources and get enough sales to support both models in a single module, they would still do so but if they think they need to sell it then they would be able to do that, I would just be asking for a discount based on commonality. 

 

Did you totally gloss over the part that HB is currently the only team with such a capacity to delve into that, delivered it in the form of a fair complex airframe, and, even then, they had to plan ahead for that AND it was included in the original purchase? Just like with AvioJet's 101 and PolyChop's Gazelle. It totally hinges on the airframe in question AND the team. Especially the team. And it's not so simple as asking for a discount based on commonality, it really isn't.

Edited December 4, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

4 hours ago, bies said:

Heatblur makes different variants, AudioDev/Aerges makes different variants, Razbam makes different variants, Polychop makes different variants, even one of ED stuff stated in the interview ED is considering making "everything F-4" variants.

Just saying

 

HB, Polychop, and AvioDev/Aerges had multiple variants planned from the get go and was included in your purchase. Engine changes and mounting changes are one thing, but we're talking about an airframe that is just now only being approached by the F-16 in terms of examples produced. There's a lot of changes to the airframe over the course of that period.

It won't be as simple as just giving an existing model some new things and new systems. After all, variations could be as simple as basic avionics changes for different customers OR as being very substantive in nature that requires a lot more work. Less work to make, sure, but not as little as you may think AND it's another module to support. One that may not sell as well as it's entirely predicated on the purchase of the base product.

My point is that it isn't so simple. HB is uniquely gifted here since they seem to have both the manpower, resources, and time to dedicate to that.

Also, when did RAZBAM produce multiple variants? They promised a MiG-19S with the purchase of the -19P. We've still yet to get it. I'd much rather they go back and fix the -19P's standing issues than give me another variant.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be first in line to buy more variants of the MiG-21 from Mag3. Give me an F-13 and I hope we also get a KA-6 with HB's Intruder as it's pretty integral to the A-6 crew experience, but a lot of DCS' third parties already have quite the workload and so much already gets backburnered. Adding further complexity like this could just be adding more weight and I don't fancy treating these teams like their Giles Corey.

Edited December 4, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[WinterH]

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, upyr1 said:

I just couldn't see that happening. I just don't see anything less than two variants.

Oh I hope you are right, I truly wish so, especially for F-4. Yet, I don't know if devs will do it. I want them to though, that's for sure. For me, F-4, if it isn't later block E, might as well not be made at all, and I know it is the other way around for some others. So I really want to see multiple variants of it, but among what we have in DCS, only Aerges' proposed Mirage F1 module approach the level of difference between F-4E and naval F-4s. Other multi variant modules we have had so far have been relatively similar when it comes to avionics, looks etc. I do certainly hope whomever is developing F-4 (most likely Heatblur) will take F-4's special case into consideration and plan either a two-in-one, or at least two separate modules.

18 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

That would be opening up Pandora's box.

Personally, I have wanted variants to be a thing in DCS for many years myself, and I still do. With some aircraft, it is just a necessity. You can't make do with an F-4J or S for E, neither with E for the former.

I'm ok with the idea of a "owner of one variant gets the others for a lighter price". We get variants, more toys to play with for less money, and devs get to make more business with relatively less costs. Pretty sure that wouldn't become the only content coming from that point on if such a system would start happening in DCS. Still though, I'd even be happy with both being full price modules when the difference and effort required is large enough, which frankly may be the case with F-4 variants. It's not like we didn't pay for a simlar case already anyway: Fw-190D-9 and Fw-190A-8 each being separate products. Originaly ED looked like they might eventually add F and G variants into the A-8 module, but that idea apparently fell by the wayside.

Though, I must say that I am incredibly grateful for Aerges including CE, EE, BE, and M all apparently in a single package!

18 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

But from the early 80s there was also the AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack which is 1st generation FLIR + 12k ft LTD/R.

Yep, Belsimtek's sadly buried module was going to be an F-4E Block 58 if I recall correctly, it was going to have the Pave Tack, and ARN-101. Pave Tack is similar to F-111's pod as far as I know, it is a centerline only mounting for F-4, and is huge, heavy, and draggy, but has more modern TGP features like automatic target tracking and night capability as far as I know. Pave Spike is a lot smaller and lighter, and goes into one of the fuselage AIM-7 recesses, leaving the centerline pylon still available for fuel or ordnance, but it was a daylight only system. I think it didn't have automatic target/area tracking, but not entirely sure.

I'd be happy with either, but I kinda feel like slightly earlier block with the Pave Spike would be more representative of a worldwide service history, as the Pave Tack was USAF only I think.

Things like Mavericks, Shrikes, Paveways should be shared between the two, but I think GBU-15 TV guided bomb may be Block 58 only. Air to air wise they should be mostly the same too I think.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

I'm ok with the idea of a "owner of one variant gets the others for a lighter price". We get variants, more toys to play with for less money, and devs get to make more business with relatively less costs. Pretty sure that wouldn't become the only content coming from that point on if such a system would start happening in DCS. Still though, I'd even be happy with both being full price modules when the difference and effort required is large enough, which frankly may be the case with F-4 variants.

I disagree with not being able to make do as a number of air arms have flown the 'gunless' F-4s (and still do in the case of Iran) however I do agree that those desiring further variants should be prepared to pay full price for individual examples. If you're to offer a discount? I would expect it to be in the form of a bundle of the examples. $80 for an F-4E and a carrier F-4 would be out the park, I'd think.

[BIGNEWY]

21 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Teams have a hard enough time supporting modules. ED has basically forgotten that the F-5, F-86, and MiG-15 exist. 

you are talking nonsense.

The fact is we have limited resources, so we have to prioritise work, it does not mean modules are forgotten.  

[Northstar98]

13 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Pave Tack is similar to F-111's pod as far as I know, it is a centerline only mounting for F-4, and is huge, heavy, and draggy, but has more modern TGP features like automatic target tracking and night capability as far as I know.

Yep, same pod as the F-111.

As far as the track modes go, the T.O. 1F-111-1 mentions that the pod LOS is controlled manually, but the pod generates 'rate aiding signals' which take the workload off of the operator (the document mentions that the signal from the manual corrections, and the rate aiding signal get added together).

There is also a memory mode where the LOS is controlled automatically based on the last known track point position. This mode can either be commanded by half-action on the F-111s thumb control unit, or whenever the head gimbal limits reach the laser inhibit zone. In this mode manual inputs are discarded except to exit the memory mode.

And yes, being a 1st generation FLIR system, Pave Tack is night-capable (but expect less sensitivity and resolution compared to LANTIRN, which has 2nd generation FLIR).

13 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Pave Spike is a lot smaller and lighter, and goes into one of the fuselage AIM-7 recesses, leaving the centerline pylon still available for fuel or ordnance, but it was a daylight only system. I think it didn't have automatic target/area tracking, but not entirely sure.

Yes, 1st generation black and white TV, and seeing as Pave Tack doesn't seem to have much in the way of automatic target/area tracking, I'm fairly sure Pave Spike is fully manual.

13 minutes ago, WinterH said:

I'd be happy with either, but I kinda feel like slightly earlier block with the Pave Spike would be more representative of a worldwide service history, as the Pave Tack was USAF only I think.

AFAIK Pave Tack was present on USAF and ROKAF F-4Es (as well as Australian F-111Cs and of course USAF F-111Fs).

Perhaps it could be implemented like the LANTIRN in the Tomcat, but instead of controls being present/not-present based on whether or not LANTIRN is installed, if Pave Spike is installed controls associated are present and if Pave Tack is installed, controls for that are present instead.

13 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Things like Mavericks, Shrikes, Paveways should be shared between the two, but I think GBU-15 TV guided bomb may be Block 58 only. Air to air wise they should be mostly the same too I think.

AFAIK (which isn't much, this predominantly comes from the C:MO database), GBU-15s were only on 3rd TFW aircraft (I have no idea about blocks).

GBU-31(V)1/B CWW [EO, Mk84] came to 3rd TFW F-4Es in 1983, alongside its AN/AXQ-14 DL pod and then the GBU-31(V)2/B CWW [IIR, Mk84], GBU-31(V)31/B CWW [EO, BLU-109/B] and GBU-31(V)32/B CWW [IIR, BLU-109/B] in 1986.

[FlankerKiller]

1小时前，MiG21bisFishbedL说：

I disagree with not being able to make do as a number of air arms have flown the 'gunless' F-4s (and still do in the case of Iran) however I do agree that those desiring further variants should be prepared to pay full price for individual examples. If you're to offer a discount? I would expect it to be in the form of a bundle of the examples. $80 for an F-4E and a carrier F-4 would be out the park, I'd think.

I definitely disagree with the second half of this. While a different variant does require work, some new cockpit layouts, new systems modeled, or systems deleted, and in some cases even the inclusions of new weapons. It's not like they're starting from scratch. When you pay full price for a module, you're paying for that module being developed from nothing. A different variant of an airframe is going to have a tremendous amount of work already done 3D modeling, systems modeling, often engine modeling, weapons modeling, and very importantly flight modeling. Yes there will often be changes, but those are changes to something that is existing. 80s charging $20 to upgrade from the a10c to the A10-c2 is a pretty good example of the financial burden that accompany would be expecting from such an upgrade. I think 20 to $30 in today's money would be reasonable for new variants of the same aircraft. It would also give makers of an aircraft an opportunity to continue bringing in revenue. I actually don't like Hitler's model on this. What if you are not interested in the f-14a. Or the Iranian model. Or the B model for that matter. You still got stuck with the pricing for all of it. But it would be unfair to the consumer to charge full price for each individual variant that is developed. When the foundation will already have been laid. Just my two cents. I do believe we are coming to a Time when different variants of aircraft are going to be expected and going to be the norm. I also believe it is unfair to ask a developer to develop several variants of an aircraft for initial release. I also think that that is unfair to the consumers who may not be interested in each and every variant of each and every aircraft. But I do believe we're significant different exist, that the market will support multiple variants of the same airframe. Early, middle, late being a good example. Or in the case of the F4 definitely a naval and land base variant. Actually the F4 needs an early, a middle, and a late of both navel and land-based. At least an early and late. Which is great for the developer. Because they get to sell multiple projects without having to develop each one from scratch.

 

[WinterH]

2 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I disagree with not being able to make do as a number of air arms have flown the 'gunless' F-4s

It is not about agreeing-disagreeing or an opinion. They just won't make do for each other because of seriously huge avionics, generally used role, and ordnance differences. F-4Es had a lot more going when it comes to strike/ground attack, and yet naval F-4s had a lot more going for air to air. No amount of skins will give a naval F-4 Mavericks and any sort of targeting pods to lase GBUs, or an internal gun. Similarly, no amount of skins and eye squinting will make an F-4E's radar look down capable, or have exotics like early helmet mounted sights.

Edited December 4, 2021 by WinterH

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

you are talking nonsense.

The fact is we have limited resources, so we have to prioritise work, it does not mean modules are forgotten.  

I legitimately look forward to being proven wrong in regards to the ones I've listed. It has been a long time coming.


Anyways, I'm still not denying the efficacy or even the desirability to add in variants. There's definite appeal, but those who want more should be prepared to not see much of a discount, if any at all. Or rather, see them being made part of an existing release and be a distant goal.

Edited December 4, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Did you totally gloss over the part that HB is currently the only team with such a capacity to delve into that, delivered it in the form of a fair complex airframe, and, even then, they had to plan ahead for that AND it was included in the original purchase? Just like with AvioJet's 101 and PolyChop's Gazelle. It totally hinges on the airframe in question AND the team. Especially the team. And it's not so simple as asking for a discount based on commonality, it really isn't.

 

I didn't gloss over anything. I will point out the following things first we do have one plane with two modules- the FW-190 Anton and Dora, and the variants in the multi-variant modules really don't differ  a lot. I will point out we don't have the F-14D, only the A and B. I suspect that is because the A and B use a lot of the same code and really only differ with the engines. Pointing out the fact they planned ahead doesn't prove anything either since you have to plan ahead when you program.

12 hours ago, bies said:

Heatblur makes different variants, AudioDev/Aerges makes different variants, Razbam makes different variants, Polychop makes different variants, even one of ED stuff stated in the interview ED is considering making "everything F-4" variants.

Just saying

 

I'm hopping that vision still holds even though someone else has taken up the task

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

14 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I didn't gloss over anything. I will point out the following things first we do have one plane with two modules- the FW-190 Anton and Dora, and the variants in the multi-variant modules really don't differ  a lot. I will point out we don't have the F-14D, only the A and B. I suspect that is because the A and B use a lot of the same code and really only differ with the engines. Pointing out the fact they planned ahead doesn't prove anything either since you have to plan ahead when you program.

 

It really does, though.  And yeah, with something like the 190 series, it can be just a matter of plugging in new engine values and changing the model. Of course, there's more to it, but it's some weight and balance related things, I'd guess. Not too difficult to tackle. That is not the case with all aircraft, though. And, these were both sold at full price.

I'm just saying, be prepared to see a minute discount if anything at all.

Edited December 4, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[upyr1]

8 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

HB, Polychop, and AvioDev/Aerges had multiple variants planned from the get go and was included in your purchase. Engine changes and mounting changes are one thing, but we're talking about an airframe that is just now only being approached by the F-16 in terms of examples produced. There's a lot of changes to the airframe over the course of that period.

 

I don't expect every block of every model of the F-4 just enough to give a reasonable highlight reel. 

 

8 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It won't be as simple as just giving an existing model some new things and new systems. After all, variations could be as simple as basic avionics changes for different customers OR as being very substantive in nature that requires a lot more work. Less work to make, sure, but not as little as you may think AND it's another module to support. One that may not sell as well as it's entirely predicated on the purchase of the base product.

I have been saying this from the start. The differnt versions of the F-4 Phantom II will inevitably share some code, just like the differnt F-14 variants share code. The issue is how much do they share and how much work will it be to maintain the module and how the developers think it would affect their income. 

 

 

8 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

 

My point is that it isn't so simple. HB is uniquely gifted here since they seem to have both the manpower, resources, and time to dedicate to that.

Also, when did RAZBAM produce multiple variants? They promised a MiG-19S with the purchase of the -19P. We've still yet to get it. I'd much rather they go back and fix the -19P's standing issues than give me another variant.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be first in line to buy more variants of the MiG-21 from Mag3. Give me an F-13 and I hope we also get a KA-6 with HB's Intruder as it's pretty integral to the A-6 crew experience, but a lot of DCS' third parties already have quite the workload and so much already gets backburnered. Adding further complexity like this could just be adding more weight and I don't fancy treating these teams like their Giles Corey.

 

Funny historical reference.  The MiG-21 I think is an other good plane to test the idea out. We have the MiG-21 Bis which is a post Vietnam bird, would I love a Vietnam era MiG-21 or even a Bison or Lancer? Absolutely. When it comes to doing multiple modules there are two issues to think about. First is the amount of work it will take and second projected sales. The Lancer or Bison would be rather complex but the older version will be simpler to do I don't know how much could would remain with either.   

[Silver_Dragon]

34 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I didn't gloss over anything. I will point out the following things first we do have one plane with two modules- the FW-190 Anton and Dora, and the variants in the multi-variant modules really don't differ  a lot. I will point out we don't have the F-14D, only the A and B.

Fw 190 A-8

The A-8 entered production in February 1944, powered either by the standard BMW 801 D-2 or the 801Q (also known as 801TU). The 801Q/TU, with the "T" signifying a Triebwerksanlage unitized powerplant installation, was a standard 801D with improved, thicker armour on the BMW-designed front annular cowling, which still incorporated the BMW-designed oil cooler, upgraded from 6 mm (0.24 in) on earlier models to 10 mm (0.39 in). Changes introduced in the Fw 190 A-8 also included the C3-injection Erhöhte Notleistung emergency boost system to the fighter variant of the Fw 190 A (a similar system with less power had been fitted to some earlier Jabo variants of the 190 A), raising power to 1,980 PS (1,950 hp; 1,460 kW) for 10 minutes. The 10 minute emergency power may be used up to three times per mission with a 10 minute cooldown in "combat power" between each 10 minute use of emergency power.[37]

Fw 190 D-9

The D-9 series was rarely used against heavy-bomber raids, as the circumstances of the war in late 1944 meant that fighter-versus-fighter combat and ground attack missions took priority. This model was the basis for the follow-on Focke-Wulf Ta 152 aircraft.

A fighter with secondary ground attack rol and a radial engine vs a High-altitude bomber interceptor with linear engine and completed diferent structure, weigh, CG, weapons and propose. The "same" comparative with a Tomcat. The F-4E and F-4S has diferent Beasts, and complete diferent modules by systems and propose.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Contact409]

which one has the internal guns ?  we gonna need that for sure.

[Silver_Dragon]

4 minutes ago, Contact409 said:

which one has the internal guns ?  we gonna need that for sure.

No
- F-4E has USAF version with an integral M61 Vulcan cannon in the elongated RF-4C nose, AN/APQ-120 radar with smaller cross-section to accommodate the cannon, J79-GE-17 engines with 17,900 lbf (79.379 kN) of afterburner thrust each. Late-series aircraft equipped with leading-edge slats to improve maneuverability at the expense of top speed under the Agile Eagle program. Starting with Block 53, aircraft added AGM-65 Maverick capability and smokeless J79-GE-17C or -17E engines. First flight 1 August 1965. The most numerous Phantom variant; 1,370 built.

- F-4J Improved F-4B version for US Navy and Marine Corps, with emphasis on air-to-air combat capability improvement, which include: J79-GE-10 engines with 17,844 lbf (79.374 kN) of afterburner thrust each, AN/APG-59 pulse doppler radar coupled with the AN/AWG-10 Fire Control System for look-down shoot-down capability, larger main landing gear wheels resulting in wing bulges similar to F-4C, slatted tailplane, ailerons drooped 16.5° when landing gear and flaps were deployed to decrease the landing speed, zero-zero ejection seats, expanded ground attack capability, no IRST sensor under the nose.

Very diferent aircrafts.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

13 minutes ago, Contact409 said:

which one has the internal guns ?  we gonna need that for sure.

Echos. There's a lot of landbased 'gunless' ones but they were usually reserved for some export customers or ANG squadrons. The Es were probably the sort of "definitive" Phantom from an international POV. However, from the POV of US Aviation, it's different.

Edited December 4, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Fw 190 A-8

The A-8 entered production in February 1944, powered either by the standard BMW 801 D-2 or the 801Q (also known as 801TU). The 801Q/TU, with the "T" signifying a Triebwerksanlage unitized powerplant installation, was a standard 801D with improved, thicker armour on the BMW-designed front annular cowling, which still incorporated the BMW-designed oil cooler, upgraded from 6 mm (0.24 in) on earlier models to 10 mm (0.39 in). Changes introduced in the Fw 190 A-8 also included the C3-injection Erhöhte Notleistung emergency boost system to the fighter variant of the Fw 190 A (a similar system with less power had been fitted to some earlier Jabo variants of the 190 A), raising power to 1,980 PS (1,950 hp; 1,460 kW) for 10 minutes. The 10 minute emergency power may be used up to three times per mission with a 10 minute cooldown in "combat power" between each 10 minute use of emergency power.[37]

Fw 190 D-9

The D-9 series was rarely used against heavy-bomber raids, as the circumstances of the war in late 1944 meant that fighter-versus-fighter combat and ground attack missions took priority. This model was the basis for the follow-on Focke-Wulf Ta 152 aircraft.

A fighter with secondary ground attack rol and a radial engine vs a High-altitude bomber interceptor with linear engine and completed diferent structure, weigh, CG, weapons and propose. The "same" comparative with a Tomcat. The F-4E and F-4S has diferent Beasts, and complete diferent modules by systems and propose.

 

I don't expect to see the E, F and G in the same module as the other Phantoms. In terms of flight models there are at least 3 variants of the F-4. The long nose , Royal Phantoms, and Navy/Early USAF. 

2 hours ago, Contact409 said:

which one has the internal guns ?  we gonna need that for sure.

E and F. The F was an E stripped of BVR for the Germans. The Germans were going to use it as a strike plane. 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Echos. There's a lot of landbased 'gunless' ones but they were usually reserved for some export customers or ANG squadrons. The Es were probably the sort of "definitive" Phantom from an international POV. However, from the POV of US Aviation, it's different.

 

Fienstien, Ritchie, and DeBellevue all became aces in D's and then the most interesting version of the D in my view was the Combat Tree Phantoms as they had an advanced IFF system and made the first BVR kills. 

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

I don't expect to see the E, F and G in the same module as the other Phantoms. In terms of flight models there are at least 3 variants of the F-4. The long nose , Royal Phantoms, and Navy/Early USAF. 

- That has be 2 diferent versions on 2 branches (Navy vs USAF) with diferent doctrines and aprovals and a RN F-4 increase to a third.

[upyr1]

18 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It really does, though.  And yeah, with something like the 190 series, it can be just a matter of plugging in new engine values and changing the model. Of course, there's more to it, but it's some weight and balance related things, I'd guess. Not too difficult to tackle. That is not the case with all aircraft, though. And, these were both sold at full price.

I'm just saying, be prepared to see a minute discount if anything at all.

 

When the A-10C II came out they sold it for $10 to people who had the original A-10C. SO I don't think what I am asking for us unreasonable. Though if we get a couple differnt modules with a set of related variants then I wouldn't expect a discount.  I do know that I plan to buy as many F-4 modules that come out. I hope that we get a few of them.  

Edited December 5, 2021 by upyr1