Announcing the F-4 Phantom for DCS World!

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

HB should have started on this sooner. Imagine if they were able to get it out next month? Phantom Phebruary. The Phourth of Phantom Phebruary.

The alliterative hype delivers itself.

[Victory205]

8 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

HB should have started on this sooner. Imagine if they were able to get it out next month? Phantom Phebruary. The Phourth of Phantom Phebruary.

The alliterative hype delivers itself.

$20 right there. Where’s the Phantom jar?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Victory205 said:

$20 right there. Where’s the Phantom jar?

Yeah, I threw myself on my own sword there.

[Admiral_ZIPANGU]

One thing I would like to ask you is when did you start using the catchphrase "Phantom Forever (or Phorever)" as seen in the trailer video?
In my country (Japan), the Air Self-Defense Force liked to paint that catchphrase on the aircraft when they retired the F-4.

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, Admiral_ZIPANGU said:

One thing I would like to ask you is when did you start using the catchphrase "Phantom Forever (or Phorever)" as seen in the trailer video?
In my country (Japan), the Air Self-Defense Force liked to paint that catchphrase on the aircraft when they retired the F-4.

Legends never die - they just keep going!

The use of “Ph” instead of just an “F” was rife within the Phantom world, almost any opportunity to substitute them was taken, aviation mechanics for instance were “Phantom Phixers”. Pilots “Phantom Phlyers”.

It used to be funny, but it kind of started to wear out. 

[Tengu]

@Admiral_ZIPANGU, I'm sure the phrase and intentional misuse of "Ph" vs "F" date back to the beginning.  Most English words with a "F" sound use the letter "F", however words like "phantom" and "phrase" have Greek origins and came to English via Latin, hence the "Ph".

Phi

Φ

φ

If "Phantoms Phorever" doesn't reach back all the way to the beginning, then they appear at least when F-4s were being retired or transferred to other units.  This is the earliest I can find.

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Tengu

[Ironious]

Is it out yet?

 

[Victory205]

1 hour ago, G.J.S said:

Legends never die - they just keep going!

The use of “Ph” instead of just an “F” was rife within the Phantom world, almost any opportunity to substitute them was taken, aviation mechanics for instance were “Phantom Phixers”. Pilots “Phantom Phlyers”.

It used to be funny, but it kind of started to wear out. 

I’ll say!

Somewhere between 1980 and now, the language changed in the USN from “aircraft” to “jet”. The latter was a USAF term, and came across as a bit condescending in the USN, since pilots who flew props and helicopters performed missions far more dangerous than many USAF “jet” pilots. Landing an SH2 on a frigate in a high sea state after an 18 hour day was orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying a C141 to Manila while carefully observing USAF crew rest limitations.

I always got a kick out of the UK “fast jet” moniker, which brought to mind the idea that the RAF at some point in time, spend untold amounts of Royal Treasure in order to purchase “slow jets” for some vague reason. 

I won’t even get to the bizarre vocabulary that cool flight sim jocks have manufactured. Good grief.

Phantom drivers understood the heritage and legacy of their mount, and carried themselves accordingly. The Heatblur Phantom is a welcome addition to a part of aviation history that needs to be highlighted and remembered.

[Bremspropeller]

Jets are for jacuzzis.

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, Victory205 said:

I’ll say!

Somewhere between 1980 and now, the language changed in the USN from “aircraft” to “jet”. The latter was a USAF term, and came across as a bit condescending in the USN, since pilots who flew props and helicopters performed missions far more dangerous than many USAF “jet” pilots. Landing an SH2 on a frigate in a high sea state after an 18 hour day was orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying a C141 to Manila while carefully observing USAF crew rest limitations.

I always got a kick out of the UK “fast jet” moniker, which brought to mind the idea that the RAF at some point in time, spend untold amounts of Royal Treasure in order to purchase “slow jets” for some vague reason. 

I won’t even get to the bizarre vocabulary that cool flight sim jocks have manufactured. Good grief.

Phantom drivers understood the heritage and legacy of their mount, and carried themselves accordingly. The Heatblur Phantom is a welcome addition to a part of aviation history that needs to be highlighted and remembered.

True words brother.

It always amused me - “fast jet” - stating the obvious!
Aircraft being the correct and broad term for machinery that commits aviation. ‘Jets’ is just being lazy. 

The Heatblur stable is sure gaining some true thoroughbred icons. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

59 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

 

It always amused me - “fast jet” - stating the obvious!

Well, the A-10 does exist! As does the Yak-40.

[G.J.S]

1 minute ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Well, the A-10 does exist! 

That is just a massive cannon with engines attached! 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

That is just a massive cannon with engines attached! 

Frankly, of those were Chevy big-blocks, it'd be the most American thing ever made and we'd all become collectively jealous of it in this country.

[Raviar]

On 1/27/2022 at 4:19 AM, Tengu said:

At 0:55, I see tail code JJ 279.

From a ZOTZ decal sheet, this is Wreckin' Crew.  67-0279 Block 34.  First flight in June 1968.  Transferred to 388th TFW 34th TFS.  Based in Korat, Thailand in 1969.  Presumed lost to AAA over Laos June 30, 1970.

Photo below looks like it might be from one of the Squadron books.  (It's not from the decal sheet I mention above.)

The HB FAQ does say the classical version would be block 36-45 before anyone takes this YT video becomes an admission of an imminent Thailand-Laos-Vietnam map.  (Assuming the hype train hasn't already achieved escape velocity.)

 

The next map should be something around that area. look here:

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Raviar

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

On 1/25/2022 at 3:56 PM, statrekmike said:

 Might not be a bad idea to kinda clarify (even in the most general possible terms) what the "2022" really stands for here. Are we talking about the year of a more fleshed out, official announcement/overview or are we talking about an actual early access release. If it is the former, it might be a good idea to get ahead of any (perhaps inevitable) fever-pitch hype/conjecture/guesswork turned rumor by the community.

I guess to adequately answer your question in the clearest and “most general terms” you first have to let us know what “clarify “ really stands for….

Didn’t even get to page two before the first circle jerk about timelines started….

[_BringTheReign_]

On 1/25/2022 at 3:37 PM, Cobra847 said:

We are proud to announce the development of the legendary F-4 Phantom family for DCS World, starting with DCS: F-4E, due for release in 2022.

So, so happy to hear that Heatblur is working on the F-4 Phantom. There is no other team that could do this legendary jet justice, like you did for the F-14. Can't wait to get my hands on this! Thank you!

[Zad Fnark]

I figure when RAZBAM's MiG-23 comes out, it'll be a good contemporary opponent for the Phantom.

[Zpigman]

On 1/30/2022 at 9:56 AM, Tengu said:

@Admiral_ZIPANGU, I'm sure the phrase and intentional misuse of "Ph" vs "F" date back to the beginning.  Most English words with a "F" sound use the letter "F", however words like "phantom" and "phrase" have Greek origins and came to English via Latin, hence the "Ph".

Phi

Φ

φ

If "Phantoms Phorever" doesn't reach back all the way to the beginning, then they appear at least when F-4s were being retired or transferred to other units.  This is the earliest I can find.

 

 

As awesome as those patches are, and the Ph intentional misuse everywhere, it doesn't have the same ring as the father of the Phantom with Demon Flyer and Demon Doctor for the flight and ground crews.

[Bolt1]

We’ll get the phreakin phantom when they pheel ready to release it ..2023 be sure !

[statrekmike]

11 hours ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

I guess to adequately answer your question in the clearest and “most general terms” you first have to let us know what “clarify “ really stands for….

Didn’t even get to page two before the first circle jerk about timelines started….

  Again. I think there is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. the "clarification" I was asking about was for Heatblur to specify if they were talking about "2022" being a generalized date for more info or if it was the release window. At no point did I ask for any kind of definitive release date. I don't do that, doing that is generally pretty dumb in the DCS scene because there is seldom a real answer to give.

  Thankfully. Heatblur quickly put up some new posts shortly after I posted that did exactly what I was hoping they would do. They clarified what "2022" meant. 

[divinee]

11 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

In fact the 23MLA will eat the F-4E alive in pretty much all areas. BVR, WVR and BFM. Heck even our current Mig-21Bis pretty much matches the F-4J's, let alone the E's sustained rates at most altitudes and weights, has better T/W and a better inst. rate. Obviously it will come down to BVR tactics and pilot skill in ACM but with the R-60's alone the Mig's have a huge advantage. A 21-F13 or 23M would be closer matches in both kinematic capability and armament. 

These are quite interesting comparisons. Can you show us some numbers?

[Lurker]

I haven't seen ay official announcements so I'll post my question here, Heatblur have several modules under development currently. Is the F-4 confirmed to be the next module that will be released in early access from Heatblur? 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Is the F-4 confirmed to be the next module that will be released in early access from Heatblur?

Since the announcement trailer clearly said "2022", we can safely assume that. The other modules on Heatblur's roadmap are confirmed to be coming "later" than what was up until recently a "mystery module".

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, divinee said:

These are quite interesting comparisons. Can you show us some numbers?

Not sure if this is the MiG-23ML graph Gypsy may be getting their conclusion from. But I haven't managed to translate it so I do not fully understand it. It looks like there's a Ps=0 line that crosses what appears to be a CLmax line so I'm not sure how that works. Should I just ignore the Ps=0 line left of the CLmax line since the aircraft should be stalling at that point? If not, then that line shows a non-negligible sustained turn advantage over the circa 1972/73 slatted F-4E.

Anyway if anyone can translate or provide context, that would be great. 

13 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

In fact the 23MLA will eat the F-4E alive in pretty much all areas. BVR, WVR and BFM. Heck even our current Mig-21Bis pretty much matches the F-4J's, let alone the E's sustained rates at most altitudes and weights, has better T/W and a better inst. rate. Obviously it will come down to BVR tactics and pilot skill in ACM but with the R-60's alone the Mig's have a huge advantage. A 21-F13 or 23M would be closer matches in both kinematic capability and armament. 

As for the MiG-21bis, yeah it does have a higher T/W and ITR but I personally think the slatted F-4E's sustained turn performance will be a challenge for the MiG. The contemporary for the hard-wing F-4E I think could be the MiG-21MS and the slatted F-4E came out around the same time as the MiG-21bis if we're talking time frame. I'll have to look at the time to climb and acceleration charts in my manual but I don't remember them being massively different over the F-4E.

At the end of the day, I guess it depends what mission designers do. Some may prefer time-frames like Vietnam or Yom Kippur Wars with HB's earlier F-4E and rear-aspect only heaters (I'm thinking Alpenwolf or Blue Flag 70s servers) or they might just lump in similar tech level aircraft together in which case the Mirage F1 and MiG-23MLA would be top dogs vs the late F-4E. The MiG-23MLA is I think a 1976/1977 aircraft and the R-60M's are, what, late 70s early 80s however so it's more in line with the F-14A (early) and F-15A in terms of contemporaries. I'd post the slatted F-4E charts but my manual is from the 1980's and it's easy enough to find anyway. 

Correct me if I'm wrong on my conclusions. The various language barriers for these manuals may have me taking things out of context.

MiG-21bis in regular afterburner (left) vs "special" afterburner (right)

Edited February 1, 2022 by SgtPappy

[nighthawk2174]

31 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

Not sure if this is the MiG-23ML graph Gypsy may be getting their conclusion from. But I haven't managed to translate it so I do not fully understand it. It looks like there's a Ps=0 line that crosses what appears to be a CLmax line so I'm not sure how that works. Should I just ignore the Ps=0 line left of the CLmax line since the aircraft should be stalling at that point? If not, then that line shows a non-negligible sustained turn advantage over the circa 1972/73 slatted F-4E.

Anyway if anyone can translate or provide context, that would be great. 

As for the MiG-21bis, yeah it does have a higher T/W and ITR but I personally think the slatted F-4E's sustained turn performance will be a challenge for the MiG. The contemporary for the hard-wing F-4E I think could be the MiG-21MS and the slatted F-4E came out around the same time as the MiG-21bis if we're talking time frame. I'll have to look at the time to climb and acceleration charts in my manual but I don't remember them being massively different over the F-4E. I'd post the slatted F-4E charts but my manual is from the 1980's and it's easy enough to find anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong on my conclusions. The various language barriers for these manuals may have me taking things out of context.

The F-4E at 50% gas and no weapons is at 1.0 T/W and the bis at 50% gas is close to .95 T/W.  Although that obviously will be different if we say make it for 5min of AB at SL.  This would almost certainly favor the F4  As the emergency burner in the bis really eats gas so you'd need more of it in the bis for this setup.

31 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

Slight tangent: The MiG-23MLA is I think a 1976/1977 aircraft however so it's more in line with the F-14A (early) and F-15A in terms of contemporaries so I am not sure how mission designers will incorporate it into their servers (some may prefer time-frames like Vietnam or Yom Kippur Wars or might just lump in similar tech level aircraft together in which case the Mirage F1 and MiG-23MLA would be top dogs, IMO).

I would agree although it would be more along the lines of early F-15C's as it was introduced the same year, 1976.  Although lets keep in mind both aircraft would be in low numbers for a few more years.   One factor to consider in the F4's favor though would be jammer pods, and my current understanding is that the saphir series of radars would have rather poor CCM performance.  These pods were quite common on the US side but as far as i'm aware jamming equipment was not as common on the soviet side.

31 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

MiG-21bis in regular afterburner (left) vs "special" afterburner (right)

There is a Russian forum thread that went in depth into this discussion we could just go and pull their conclusions and user made graphs out as they did have quite a few documents regarding performance of all the jets mentioned. 

 

Example: