Jump to content

Operation bolo single mission or instant action


upyr1

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

  Yes I agree with Him that mission must be in there.

  • Like 1

There are 2 categories of fighter pilots: those who have performed, and those who someday will perform, a magnificent defensive break turn toward a bug on the canopy. Robert Shaw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Except that Bolo used F-4Cs, hence no guns, less reliable missiles, less maneuverable F-4s (no slats), which directly affected tactics used. 

But hey, it's a simulation! "What if...?"

Would definitely be interesting.

Vulture

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither was MiG-21bis the adversary. These aircraft entered service 5 years later in USSR, 12 years later in Vietnam Air Force. 

  • Thanks 1

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2022 at 11:36 AM, Kirk66 said:

Except that Bolo used F-4Cs, hence no guns, less reliable missiles, less maneuverable F-4s (no slats), which directly affected tactics used. 

But hey, it's a simulation! "What if...?"

Would definitely be interesting.

Vulture

 

I hope we get the c module soon.

On 4/22/2022 at 11:53 AM, some1 said:

Neither was MiG-21bis the adversary. These aircraft entered service 5 years later in USSR, 12 years later in Vietnam Air Force. 

That is true but ideally i would like to see the Charlie Phantom and the correct MiG-21. Until then we can make due with what we got

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google "Keith Ferris Mig Sweep". That image is PERFECT! Slick nose C, AIM-7Es and AIM-9Bs, WSO checking 6, AC lag rolling onto the Mig-21s 6 for a Fox 1 or Fox 2.

Extra points for showing the stab hard up and the rudder hard over to the right...and no aileron or spoiler deflection.

We do need that - the hard wing C was actually nicer to fly (most of the time) and faster than the later E. Was a lot easier to land from the pit!

Vulture

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kirk66 said:

Google "Keith Ferris Mig Sweep". That image is PERFECT! Slick nose C, AIM-7Es and AIM-9Bs, WSO checking 6, AC lag rolling onto the Mig-21s 6 for a Fox 1 or Fox 2.

Extra points for showing the stab hard up and the rudder hard over to the right...and no aileron or spoiler deflection.

We do need that - the hard wing C was actually nicer to fly (most of the time) and faster than the later E. Was a lot easier to land from the pit!

Vulture

That's a cool action shot. I've been looking for a new desktop image and I think I've finally found it.

 

We need as many F-4s as we can realistically get. I want to choose Phantoms the way a golfer chooses clubs.

Can't pretend fly as well as you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/26/2022 at 5:37 PM, Kirk66 said:

Google "Keith Ferris Mig Sweep". That image is PERFECT! Slick nose C, AIM-7Es and AIM-9Bs, WSO checking 6, AC lag rolling onto the Mig-21s 6 for a Fox 1 or Fox 2.

Extra points for showing the stab hard up and the rudder hard over to the right...and no aileron or spoiler deflection.

We do need that - the hard wing C was actually nicer to fly (most of the time) and faster than the later E. Was a lot easier to land from the pit!

Vulture

 

Hmm... as far as I can read, apart from when landing, then the F-4E is said to be the nicer aircraft to fly -> esp. in maneuvering flight.

As I gather it, the reason the slatted E was less comfortable to fly on landing was first of all the increased AoA limiting the forward visibility, and secondly that with gear & flaps down at low speeds a decrease in longditudinal stability and thus increased sensitivity in pitch in a landing approach at 19 units AoA was experienced .

Test report: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0904287.pdf

Some key take aways:

- "Thrust-limited turning performance data obtained during the test program indicate a significant increase above the performance demonstrated during F-4E Category II testing (reference 6). The F-4E Flight Manual for slat-eguipped aircraft should be- revised to indicate the sustained load factor capabilities demonstrated during this test program."

- The aircraft pitch response and pitch rate capability at high CN'S were satisfactory, and the increased stick force and deflection needed to attain CN'S greater than 0.9 provided additional security against inadvertently exceeding safe AOA limits.

- Simulated air-to-air tracking tests showed that terminal tracking could be effectively accomplished up to 30 units AOA without excessive pilot workload.

- Static and dynamic longditudinal stability in the cruise and combat configurations was comparable to that of the unslatted F-4E. However, in the power approach configuration with no external stores and a mid eg position reduced static stability was noted in the 17 to 21 units AOA range. This reduction of reduced stability made precise control of AOA moderately difficult during landing approaches at 19 units AOA

- The aerodynamic stall warning characteristics of the test aircraft were generally better than these of the previously evaluated slat configurations, as well as those of the unslatted aircraft.

 

Conclusions:

"The two-position slat test results show an increase in turning capability
in the subsonic portion of the flight envelope compared with that
of the basic F-4E, and were comparable to those obtained with the previous
fixed slat configuration, Agile Eagle IV. Flying qualities of the
slatted F-4E were basically comparable to those of the unslatted aircraft.
Most noticeable in the flying qualities area was the increased maneuvering
capability at high angles of attack."


Edited by Hummingbird
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Hmm... as far as I can read, apart from when landing, then the F-4E is said to be the nicer aircraft to fly -> esp. in maneuvering flight.

As I gather it, the reason the slatted E was less comfortable to fly on landing was first of all the increased AoA limiting the forward visibility, and secondly that with gear & flaps down at low speeds a decrease in longditudinal stability and thus increased sensitivity in pitch in a landing approach at 19 units AoA was experienced .

Test report: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0904287.pdf

Some key take aways:

- "Thrust-limited turning performance data obtained during the test program indicate a significant increase above the performance demonstrated during F-4E Category II testing (reference 6). The F-4E Flight Manual for slat-eguipped aircraft should be- revised to indicate the sustained load factor capabilities demonstrated during this test program."

- The aircraft pitch response and pitch rate capability at high CN'S were satisfactory, and the increased stick force and deflection needed to attain CN'S greater than 0.9 provided additional security against inadvertently exceeding safe AOA limits.

- Simulated air-to-air tracking tests showed that terminal tracking could be effectively accomplished up to 30 units AOA without excessive pilot workload.

- Static and dynamic longditudinal stability in the cruise and combat configurations was comparable to that of the unslatted F-4E. However, in the power approach configuration with no external stores and a mid eg position reduced static stability was noted in the 17 to 21 units AOA range. This reduction of reduced stability made precise control of AOA moderately difficult during landing approaches at 19 units AOA

- The aerodynamic stall warning characteristics of the test aircraft were generally better than these of the previously evaluated slat configurations, as well as those of the unslatted aircraft.

 

Conclusions:

"The two-position slat test results show an increase in turning capability
in the subsonic portion of the flight envelope compared with that
of the basic F-4E, and were comparable to those obtained with the previous
fixed slat configuration, Agile Eagle IV. Flying qualities of the
slatted F-4E were basically comparable to those of the unslatted aircraft.
Most noticeable in the flying qualities area was the increased maneuvering
capability at high angles of attack."

 

I believe Kirk stated that the slatted Phantom did indeed turn a lot better and was much easier handling at very high AoA. But he did fly it after all, and also mentioned that the later F-4E's just had lots of draggy bits - TISEO, under-wing cameras, double rear view mirrors and the slats. 

The F-4C was a lot lighter and cleaner and probably accelerated better at higher speeds where slats were dead weight. I think in some post from a long time ago, Kirk also mentioned (correct me if I'm wrong) how at low speeds and high AoA, you could feel the effect that the TISEO pod had on drag and stability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

I believe Kirk stated that the slatted Phantom did indeed turn a lot better and was much easier handling at very high AoA. But he did fly it after all, and also mentioned that the later F-4E's just had lots of draggy bits - TISEO, under-wing cameras, double rear view mirrors and the slats. 

The F-4C was a lot lighter and cleaner and probably accelerated better at higher speeds where slats were dead weight. I think in some post from a long time ago, Kirk also mentioned (correct me if I'm wrong) how at low speeds and high AoA, you could feel the effect that the TISEO pod had on drag and stability. 

Slatted E could make it around a circle a lot tighter than an unslatted E, and would complete a 360 circle a few seconds quicker than the unslatted E also. That speaks volumes about the benefits of the slats. 
The twin mirrors (external) were very noisy apparently, they would play with the airflow over the WSO pit badly at knots many.
Single mirror was the preferred install.

  • Like 1

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

I believe Kirk stated that the slatted Phantom did indeed turn a lot better and was much easier handling at very high AoA. But he did fly it after all, and also mentioned that the later F-4E's just had lots of draggy bits - TISEO, under-wing cameras, double rear view mirrors and the slats. 

The F-4C was a lot lighter and cleaner and probably accelerated better at higher speeds where slats were dead weight. I think in some post from a long time ago, Kirk also mentioned (correct me if I'm wrong) how at low speeds and high AoA, you could feel the effect that the TISEO pod had on drag and stability. 

Oh didn't know he flew the Phantom, and I didn't want to come across as lecturing, just merely stating the conclusions of the report.

There's no doubt the F-4E, esp. the slatted one, was draggier, and lost some speed, that's also outlined in the report. 

But apart from when landing the report indicates the slatted F4 was just as nice to fly, and more so during maneuvering. In cruise flight it was described as the same as the unslatted Phantoms. 

In short we should expect a really nice flying aircraft 🙂

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify on F-4C vs F-4E flying characteristics: the "hard wing", BLC F-4C was basically the same as the original Navy F-4B, designed to takeoff and land on carriers, then go fast and intercept bombers. As such, it had good takeoff and landing handling; in the pattern with the gear and flaps down 9 (and BLC), it was very speed stable; on final you could trim it up and it would hold speed hands off - you then controlled descent with the throttles and drove it onto the runway. Easy. Flying around, it was light, had pretty good vis forward from the pit, and as long as you knew how to handle it's adverse yaw departure characteristics, was easy to maneuver. The biggest gotcha was trying to roll while turning/pulling Gs - if you used aileron, you would get a strong adverse yaw response, to the point that if you were pulling hard enough, the jet would violently (as in bounce your head off the canopy) depart in the opposite direction of your aileron input.  OTOH, if you kept the stick centered and just used the rudders, you could easily do point rolls while loaded up. Or, you just unloaded to zero G, rolled fast with  ailerons to the desired bank, and pulled back into your desired G.  The introduction of the slatted (and unblown) wing on the E (and not all Es; the Thunderbirds flew hardwing Es, and the Japanese EJ were hard wing till the day they retired) reduced but did not eliminate the adverse yaw departure problem (but it still rolled better on rudder), and along with the slatted tail and bigger engines, gave it better turn performance, but the handling qualities suffered a bit. At low speeds and in the pattern, it felt "looser" and was a bit less speed stable on approach (which was about 10 knots higher than the hard wing BLC jets). Also, while flying, the operation of the slats could be felt; if you were stuck at the speed where they were cycling in and out you could lock them out to prevent the annoying pitch input they caused.

All this being said, the E was by FAR a better fighter/weapon system! But if someone was going to give me a brand new F-4 just to fly around on Sundays, I would probably take a C - and have the backseater keep his knees together when the stick was back. (yes, we were actually told to do that).

Just for comparison, I had one flight in a CF-104 (two seater) at Cold Lake - it was nicer to fly in almost all respects than the F-4 (aileron rolls of course, but also loops - which really surprised me!) and had great visibility from the back seat. And approach speed was actually pretty close to our F-4Es - unless you were doing a no flap. My RCAF pilot showed me a no-flap (at Edmonton, I think?) and the approach speed was impressive!

It's going to be a fun module, for sure!

Vulture

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Kirk66 said:

Also, while flying, the operation of the slats could be felt; if you were stuck at the speed where they were cycling in and out you could lock them out to prevent the annoying pitch input they caused.

 

Interesting, the opposite is mentioned in the instruction video:

 

Or perhaps you're refering to only when in the landing pattern at low speed with flaps & gear down?


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2022 at 6:26 AM, Hummingbird said:

 

Interesting, the opposite is mentioned in the instruction video:

 

Or perhaps you're refering to only when in the landing pattern at low speed with flaps & gear down?

 

To be fair, the guy in the video says an almost unnoticeable change in pitching moment. Slats are a discrete change in configuration, so it stands to reason that an experienced enough crew will notice the step change in pitching moment, however small especially, as you said, at landing. Pitching moment wouldn't be the only thing that changes either. As you already know, the chaotic/turbulent boundary layer separation would be tamed once the slats come out, leading to a change in buffet intensity over the second that the slats deploy which likely can be felt pretty easily.

If stuck at a speed where AoA may change by +/-1 or 2 deg. due to gust or maneuvering while in the pattern, I can see the slats "chattering" as Kirk mentioned which wouldn't be unnoticeable once flying a precision approach.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small correction - you could lock the slats IN (via the Slate Override switch). Again, only used if for some reason  you  were at a speed where the slats were cycling in and out, which was not normal. More common was to leave the Flaps/Slats switch in SLATS, which effectively locked the slats out. This was not normal - usually caused by the pilot inadvertently not fully raising the Flap/Slat switch after a formation takeoff on the wing, and would cause the jet to be noticeably slower in formation (requiring a lot more power), usually leading the WSO to politely suggest to his pilot to put the fucking Slats/Flaps switch UP!

And to make clear, the effect of the slats opening and closing wasn't huge, but it was noticeable, which it why you didn't want them cycling in and out (due to a malfunction, for example).

Vulture

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2022 at 3:50 PM, SgtPappy said:

To be fair, the guy in the video says an almost unnoticeable change in pitching moment. Slats are a discrete change in configuration, so it stands to reason that an experienced enough crew will notice the step change in pitching moment, however small especially, as you said, at landing. Pitching moment wouldn't be the only thing that changes either. As you already know, the chaotic/turbulent boundary layer separation would be tamed once the slats come out, leading to a change in buffet intensity over the second that the slats deploy which likely can be felt pretty easily.

If stuck at a speed where AoA may change by +/-1 or 2 deg. due to gust or maneuvering while in the pattern, I can see the slats "chattering" as Kirk mentioned which wouldn't be unnoticeable once flying a precision approach.

 

I don't know, I just noticed he said "if you're not watching for it, then you wont know they've moved ". But that could be refering to when maneuvering.

In the landing pattern, or when flying level at low speed, I can see that it might be noticeable as Kirk says, as here even slight changes to pitch moment & trim are usually noticable.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Kirk66 said:

Small correction - you could lock the slats IN (via the Slate Override switch). Again, only used if for some reason  you  were at a speed where the slats were cycling in and out, which was not normal. More common was to leave the Flaps/Slats switch in SLATS, which effectively locked the slats out. This was not normal - usually caused by the pilot inadvertently not fully raising the Flap/Slat switch after a formation takeoff on the wing, and would cause the jet to be noticeably slower in formation (requiring a lot more power), usually leading the WSO to politely suggest to his pilot to put the fucking Slats/Flaps switch UP!

And to make clear, the effect of the slats opening and closing wasn't huge, but it was noticeable, which it why you didn't want them cycling in and out (due to a malfunction, for example).

Vulture

Thanks Kirk! I know there is hysteresis built into the slat scheduling, but I guess sometimes this somehow failed? Did you experience this regularly? 

 

6 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

 

I don't know, I just noticed he said "if you're not watching for it, then you wont know they've moved ". But that could be refering to when maneuvering.

In the landing pattern, or when flying level at low speed, I can see that it might be noticeable as Kirk says, as here even slight changes to pitch moment & trim are usually noticable.

 

Yeah it sounds like in a hard turn you wouldn't notice the change. With all that adrenaline pumping you'd probably miss a lot of things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, some context. That video clip if from a training film that was used to introduce the slats mod to F-4 aircrews, so it's biased towards the advantages of the change. The slats definitely could be felt when they opened and closed in the effectiveness of the elevator; there is even a warning in the Dash-1 about maneuvering near the AOA where they open as they can cause a pitch overshoot when they open. But that was acceptable for the decreased chance of an departure at high AOA due to use of the ailerons. 

There was a school of thought that held that the slat mod actually decreased the combat effectiveness of the F-4 in the hands of well trained pilots since it added weight, complexity, and drag to the jet; the increased turn performance was probably due as much to the slotted tail as the slats and the fact that you could get closer to the departure point due to the "softer" departure characteristics. However, in actual combat against it's main adversaries (Mig-21s, Mig-19s, Mig-17s) in VN, the biggest advantage of the F-4 was it's speed and power; a turning fight was not recommended (it was a classic energy fighter, if you will). So slowing it down to let it turn a bit better was not universally liked - see the Brit M and Ks, the US Navy Js, and the Japanese EJs (which kept their hardwings to the end). But the slats DID cut down on losses due to out of control departures by ham-fisted, poorly trained USAF pilots who were yanked out of C-141s and stuffed into F-4s and sent to war with little air-to-air training; the Navy didn't have the same issue - due to their greater emphasis on air-to-air training at the time. When the primary role of the F-4 changed to mud beating, the slats made sense - sucks to depart at the top of a pop!

As far a slats moving in the pattern - not an issue as they were linked to the gear and flaps. And during normal cruise, they stayed in.

I hope eventually we get a Navy F-4J to compare (and I know the last F-4S's had slats - but that may have been to get them on smaller carriers?).

And I really want to trap a Navy Phantom! (cuz I will definitely try the E on a boat ASAP)

Vulture

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant insight, Kirk!

There is so much detail in your posts, that if you wrote a book just about these experiences, I bet I'd be able to almost feel what it would be like to fly a Phantom.

For instance, I didn't ever realize that an F-104 would feel good to fly in maneuvers. Really cool that you visited us up here. 

On the subject of slats not being universally liked, I can also see that from the charts. There is a massive cost in top speed at all altitudes in addition to a much lower ceiling and climb rate. I guess though there's still enough power to beat up MiGs - just not as much as there was before the slats. For instance, the plots show that the hard wing F-4E completely demolishes the MiG-21bis in speed and ceiling and is similair in climb and acceleration while carrying much more ordnance. It can't hope to turn with the MiG. With the slats, its about on par on every field (even a bit slower) but it sustains a better max turn rate. Similar conclusions can be drawn when compared the the Viggen's real world plots.

I too hope we get a hard wing F-4J next and we can then compare two different flavours of combat-proven Phantoms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 5/12/2022 at 5:02 PM, Kirk66 said:

OK, some context. That video clip if from a training film that was used to introduce the slats mod to F-4 aircrews, so it's biased towards the advantages of the change. The slats definitely could be felt when they opened and closed in the effectiveness of the elevator; there is even a warning in the Dash-1 about maneuvering near the AOA where they open as they can cause a pitch overshoot when they open. But that was acceptable for the decreased chance of an departure at high AOA due to use of the ailerons. 

There was a school of thought that held that the slat mod actually decreased the combat effectiveness of the F-4 in the hands of well trained pilots since it added weight, complexity, and drag to the jet; the increased turn performance was probably due as much to the slotted tail as the slats and the fact that you could get closer to the departure point due to the "softer" departure characteristics. However, in actual combat against it's main adversaries (Mig-21s, Mig-19s, Mig-17s) in VN, the biggest advantage of the F-4 was it's speed and power; a turning fight was not recommended (it was a classic energy fighter, if you will). So slowing it down to let it turn a bit better was not universally liked - see the Brit M and Ks, the US Navy Js, and the Japanese EJs (which kept their hardwings to the end). But the slats DID cut down on losses due to out of control departures by ham-fisted, poorly trained USAF pilots who were yanked out of C-141s and stuffed into F-4s and sent to war with little air-to-air training; the Navy didn't have the same issue - due to their greater emphasis on air-to-air training at the time. When the primary role of the F-4 changed to mud beating, the slats made sense - sucks to depart at the top of a pop!

As far a slats moving in the pattern - not an issue as they were linked to the gear and flaps. And during normal cruise, they stayed in.

I hope eventually we get a Navy F-4J to compare (and I know the last F-4S's had slats - but that may have been to get them on smaller carriers?).

And I really want to trap a Navy Phantom! (cuz I will definitely try the E on a boat ASAP)

Vulture

 

I guess the opinions on the slats differ, as so far I've read lots of positives about them from other F-4 pilots. But they were also all airforce, not Navy.

 

Btw, a cool little video showing them in operation on greek F4E:

 


Edited by Hummingbird
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

Did the slatted F-4 engage in any combat in VN ?

Yes, the slatted, TISEO-equipped F-4E saw some combat from Nov 1972 til the end of US involvement in Jan 1973. 2 or 3 Sparrows were fired but the MiGs went cold each time. Most work was A2G where the Mav saw first combat use.

The majority of slatted F-4E ace-making kills came with the Israelis in the 1973 Yom Kippur/October War. Then Iran flew them heavily in both air-to-surface and A2A from 1981-1989 against Iraq but those records are spotty and hard to confirm.

15 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

 

 

I guess the opinions on the slats differ, as so far I've read lots of positives about them from other F-4 pilots. But they were also all airforce, not Navy.

 

Btw, a cool little video showing them in operation on greek F4E:

 

 

Yea for sure, I'm willing to bet the majority of pilots liked the slats. I know that Jerry Tucker - the F-8J pilot who scared a MiG-17 pilot so bad, the pilot ejected before Tucker could take a shot - flew the F-4S and found it could turn circles around the F-8J. But it would makes sense that a few of those (especially those who saw lots of combat) in the hard wing F-4 might prefer the higher performance over the tighter turns. We saw this a lot in WW2 and Korea with differing pilot opinions on different aircraft.

Kirk, did you know anyone personally who preferred the hard wing version overall? Did you?


Edited by SgtPappy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see how quick & smooth the slats are to extend and retract in that video, it's a very cool system. 

Also I wonder, were the leading edge slats on the F-4 variable in their degree of deployment, i.e. would they be half extended at a certain AoA and gradually come out more as AoA increased? or was it either fully in or fully out ?

Asking as on for most fighter (for example F-16, Mirage F1 or F-5 Tiger) the degree of leading edge device (flap or slat) deployment depends on the AoA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

It's interesting to see how quick & smooth the slats are to extend and retract in that video, it's a very cool system. 

Also I wonder, were the leading edge slats on the F-4 variable in their degree of deployment, i.e. would they be half extended at a certain AoA and gradually come out more as AoA increased? or was it either fully in or fully out ?

Asking as on for most fighter (for example F-16, Mirage F1 or F-5 Tiger) the degree of leading edge device (flap or slat) deployment depends on the AoA.

I think they were “bang-bang”, either in or out manoeuvre slats. Extend at a certain AoA, and retract a degree or two less than extend.

Will have to wait for an ‘E’ hand to chip in however, different mark to me.

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...