Naval Phantom Variant

[Vampyre]

6 hours ago, diveplane said:

was the rolls engine better?

You will get to see the Spey in action if you end up getting the A-7E from Flying Iron when it releases. The TF-41 is a modified RR Spey made specifically for the A-7 Corsair II. The Spey's reputation is that it has a lack of responsiveness around the boat but plenty of thrust in both the A-7E and F-4K/FG-1.

[Dragon1-1]

The problem with the Spey was different: it was much larger than the Phantom's original engines, resulting in them being pointed at an awkward angle and requiring a somewhat expanded housing. This clobbered the Phantom's transsonic aerodynamics, leading to Spey-equipped Phantoms having a noticeably lower top speed. 

Slow throttle response didn't help with boat ops, either. It'll be interesting to fly the A-7E, but unlike the Phantom, that one was designed for the bigger engine from the start.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[diveplane]

are we getting a naval ops version?

[G.J.S]

53 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The problem with the Spey was different: it was much larger than the Phantom's original engines, resulting in them being pointed at an awkward angle and requiring a somewhat expanded housing. This clobbered the Phantom's transsonic aerodynamics, leading to Spey-equipped Phantoms having a noticeably lower top speed. 

Slow throttle response didn't help with boat ops, either. It'll be interesting to fly the A-7E, but unlike the Phantom, that one was designed for the bigger engine from the start.

 

True.

Larger intakes and redesigned fuselage played hell with the (already) “interesting” aerodynamics. J-79 equipped Phantoms ruled in the mid 20’s upwards, but down in the weeds the Spey was in its element. All kinds of thrust! 
Spool up times were slightly longer than the J-79. 
As for “noticeably slower” . . . ‘Officially’ Spey Phantoms wouldn’t get above 1.8M, I have heard more than once of +2M being achieved at altitude (on air test), and 740kts at low level. Certainly no slouch, not the quickest - but no slouch.

 

[Stackup]

2 hours ago, diveplane said:

are we getting a naval ops version?

The FAQ is your friend.  

Q: Will there be a Navy F-4?
A: Yes! Our Phantom journey only begins with the -E. However, owing to the complexity of the work and investment of time and effort, it will not be included in the DCS: F-4E product. We’re instead choosing to focus on providing the most content rich F-4E we possibly can, and then set our sights on further telling the legendary story of the F-4.

[Dragon1-1]

On 11/13/2023 at 2:52 AM, G.J.S said:

Certainly no slouch, not the quickest - but no slouch.

I suppose the Spey was helped by the general idea behind the Phantom, that is, triumph of thrust over aerodynamics.  I suppose you could hit 2.0M if the weather was right. Being carrier aircraft, the UK Phantoms had an unquestionable advantage over the RAF of being able to sail their airstrip to somewhere where it doesn't rain.  

[G.J.S]

21 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

 Being carrier aircraft, the UK Phantoms had an unquestionable advantage over the RAF of being able to sail their airstrip to somewhere where it doesn't rain.  

Aye, true. RAF were fully paid up members of the "bl**dy crosswind" club. 

[Kalasnkova74]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I suppose the Spey was helped by the general idea behind the Phantom, that is, triumph of thrust over aerodynamics. 

I know this is said a lot regarding the Phantom II, even by crew and pilots . But this  phrase discredits the truth of what McDonnell accomplished in the early 60s. In an era with slide rules & drafting tables they built a Mach II capable interceptor that could be safely landed aboard a carrier - at 160 knots. That requires fairly advanced aerodynamic qualities. 

Meanwhile, pilots in Huns and Starfighters were tightening their sphincters on landing approach. The Hun liked to yaw unaware people into the dirt (with explosive and fatal consequences), and the Starfighter had about six or seven different ways to kill a pilot during landing. The F-4s aerodynamics deserve more credit than is often granted.
 

 

[Dragon1-1]

The thing with the Phantom wasn't that it lacked lift. It was draggy, but powerful engines were quite sufficient to overcome this, at the price of being a gas guzzler. This is where the phrase comes from, the Phantom might have been a stable, well behaved aircraft, but it took a lot of thrust to get going this fast, courtesy of two giant motors in the back.

Also, its low speed handling was only great compared to its contemporaries, which included the notoriously difficult to trap F-8 and A-7. Even the F-14, considered challenging to trap in DCS, was easier than the Phantom.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[Cab]

33 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Even the F-14, considered challenging to trap in DCS, was easier than the Phantom.

 

I don’t think this is accurate. I seem to remember many pilots who flew both saying the F-4 was easier to get aboard than the F-14. 

[Kalasnkova74]

43 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The thing with the Phantom wasn't that it lacked lift. It was draggy, but powerful engines were quite sufficient to overcome this, at the price of being a gas guzzler. This is where the phrase comes from, the Phantom might have been a stable, well behaved aircraft, but it took a lot of thrust to get going this fast, courtesy of two giant motors in the back.

Also, its low speed handling was only great compared to its contemporaries, which included the notoriously difficult to trap F-8 and A-7. Even the F-14, considered challenging to trap in DCS, was easier than the Phantom.

 

None of that changes the fact that the F-4 has fairly advanced aerodynamics for its time. McDonnell solved a series of conflicting design challenges in the Phantom II without resorting to swing wings, computer aided flight stability , or building a low speed deathtrap. An admirable accomplishment for 1960s technology. 

[SgtPappy]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Even the F-14, considered challenging to trap in DCS, was easier than the Phantom.

Most interviews I've heard from Phantom crew say the opposite, most notably Jerry Tucker and Bill Switzer.

[KPenn5]

2 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Most interviews I've heard from Phantom crew say the opposite, most notably Jerry Tucker and Bill Switzer.

That’s the exact thing I’ve heard! 

listening to the Fighter Pilot Podcast on the Phantom, it was apparently pretty stable landing on the boat. Apparently, cat shots were the difficult part, as you had to be careful not to over rotate the jet. 

[Doc3908]

Now that the F-4E is finally out, I'd like to revive this thread with a request to Heatblur: Please give us a naval Phantom!!! 

[Cab]

15 minutes ago, Doc3908 said:

Now that the F-4E is finally out, I'd like to revive this thread with a request to Heatblur: Please give us a naval Phantom!!! 

It is apparently in their plans.

[sparrow88]

I feel like a grave digger but did we get any information regarding navy version since the release?

[Zabuzard]

I feel like a grave digger but did we get any information regarding navy version since the release?

Nope :)

[MichaelJWP15]

On 11/16/2023 at 4:52 AM, SgtPappy said:

Most interviews I've heard from Phantom crew say the opposite, most notably Jerry Tucker and Bill Switzer.

Difficult to say unless a pilot has flown both types.. I guess someone, somewhere who has access to the actual stats (which wire, bolters and mishaps) could provide definitive evidence on that.

[Cab]

40 minutes ago, MichaelJWP15 said:

Difficult to say unless a pilot has flown both types.. I guess someone, somewhere who has access to the actual stats (which wire, bolters and mishaps) could provide definitive evidence on that.

Pilots I've heard interviewed, who flew both the Phantom and Tomcat, are unanimous in their opinion that the Phantom was much easier to bring aboard.