F-4E (Late) one piece windshield?

[_BringTheReign_]

Well I ended up going down a rabbit hole after seeing an image of this F-4E (68-0345) with a single piece windscreen forward of the canopy bow:

Apparently close to the end of production, F-4E's coming out of the micky-D factories in the 80's had these, and they ended up in Missouri ANG units as well as I believe a Greek export bird or two. Curious if anyone has more info or an official source on this!

Edited January 19, 2023 by _BringTheReign_
formatting

[RaceFuel85]

2 hours ago, _BringTheReign_ said:

Well I ended up going down a rabbit hole after seeing an image of this F-4E (68-0345) with a single piece windscreen forward of the canopy bow:

Apparently close to the end of production, F-4E's coming out of the micky-D factories in the 80's had these, and they ended up in Missouri ANG units as well as I believe a Greek export bird or two. Curious if anyone has more info or an official source on this!

 

 Yes, a number of RF-4C's were refitted with the frameless windscreen also.  No F-4's were actually produced from the factory with the one piece windscreen, as can be seen in the last McD produced F-4E (#5,057 which was a F-4E-67MC).  You can see in this picture the standard framed multipiece windscreen.  This F-4E went to Korea, btw. 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by RaceFuel85

[Czechnology]

Think it's unlikely we'll be getting one. There were some F-4s retrofitted but to my understanding it was a pretty small batch because the idea was floated when the bird was ending her life in the USAF

[KPenn5]

I think there was only around 12 Phantoms that ended up getting the one piece windscreen, spread between RF-4’s, F-4E’s and the F-4G 

[Nodak]

Don't forget a huge bulk of McDonald Douglas employee's also belonged to the Missouri ANG which thus had direct access to the knowledge base and production line with the plant next door.  Back than ANG units had very different traditions, those were their aircraft, just like Montana customized all their F-106 cockpits to MIG blue. 

In the old days pre Desert Storm one. they were actually a distinct and separate command and did not answer to the Pentagram.  The Guard Bureau was a power unto itself until the Pentagram had the opportunity to strangle it through mission assignment and funding during the post cold war draw down and realignment, those who failed to bend over were dissolved and stripped of missions and aircraft.  

[streakeagle]

The one-piece windshield was principally adopted for its improved resistance to bird strikes. The removal of the center window frames did not significantly improve visibility because of the already crowded forward view with the gunsight, video recording system, RWR, sun glare shield, etc. In fact, the detailed writeup on it said that the new installation used a wider canopy bow that actually reduced the viewing area overall.

It would still be really cool to have an option check box to toggle between front windshield styles. But it is a lot more work than just removing the frames in the center. So, I wouldn't expect Heatblur to waste even one second on it when they could be working on an carrier capable F-4J/S variant.

[upyr1]

It would be awesome to have, at least a checkbox based on the date. I don't know how much time it would take to implement but it would be nice

[_BringTheReign_]

On 1/22/2023 at 8:45 PM, streakeagle said:

In fact, the detailed writeup on it said that the new installation used a wider canopy bow that actually reduced the viewing area overall.

That's shocking, but it makes sense - highly ironic that a one piece actually reduced visibility, I think most would have assumed it helped! Thank you for sharing!

[Exorcet]

On 1/19/2023 at 4:31 PM, Czechnology said:

Think it's unlikely we'll be getting one. There were some F-4s retrofitted but to my understanding it was a pretty small batch because the idea was floated when the bird was ending her life in the USAF

How common it was doesn't really matter for a simulation though. We could have the option to fly the common configuration, or the rare one. Neither is more correct. What I'd consider a bigger factor is how much work it is for Heatblur to make another model for the plane.

[Northstar98]

23 hours ago, Exorcet said:

How common it was doesn't really matter for a simulation though.

Well, it does if you're interested in making missions that are supposed to be more grounded in history. If I want to make a mission on whatever map set in whatever year, it definitely matters what the more common configuration of the aircraft on said map during whatever year was.

It also matters if you're planning on trying to represent other operators, a more common configuration is more likely to be more accurate to multiple operators.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Northstar98

[Czechnology]

23 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

How common it was doesn't really matter for a simulation though. We could have the option to fly the common configuration, or the rare one. Neither is more correct. What I'd consider a bigger factor is how much work it is for Heatblur to make another model for the plane.

that's fair tbh, but doubt we'll get it still. Just extra unnecessary work when they've got the late F-4 in the pipe, the EF, and the A-6

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, it does if you're interested in making missions that are supposed to be more grounded in history. If I want to make a mission on whatever map set in whatever year, it definitely matters what the more common configuration of the aircraft on said map at whatever year.

It also matters if you're planning on trying to represent other operators, a more common configuration is more likely to be more accurate to multiple operators.

My statement was under the assumption that we had both, so we could switch at will to fit the desired scenario. If we only got one, then yeah the choice would have to be more deliberate if the desire was to fill as many historical roles as possible.

3 hours ago, Czechnology said:

that's fair tbh, but doubt we'll get it still. Just extra unnecessary work when they've got the late F-4 in the pipe, the EF, and the A-6

I can't say anything about the chance that we'll see the frameless canopy, just pointing out that the virtual plane doesn't have to be bound by the same rules regarding scarcity as the real plane. Indeed it might end up being too much work for Heatblur to consider.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

From a modellers' stand point, I knew about the one piece windscreen, IIRC they said somewhere it was only a short test, so tried, didn't like it/work as intended, end of the story. All the airframes testes ended up with it's old trusty regular windscreen. It was no real option whatsoever.

And YES, it does matter for a simulation. You misspelled it, "it doesn't matter for a arcade game", in a real simulation OF COURSE it matters. How on Earth wouldn't it matter if you seek the most realistic simulation and start wasting your time with stupid unimportant silly arcade options???

[Exorcet]

20 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

From a modellers' stand point, I knew about the one piece windscreen, IIRC they said somewhere it was only a short test, so tried, didn't like it/work as intended, end of the story. All the airframes testes ended up with it's old trusty regular windscreen. It was no real option whatsoever.

And YES, it does matter for a simulation. You misspelled it, "it doesn't matter for a arcade game", in a real simulation OF COURSE it matters. How on Earth wouldn't it matter if you seek the most realistic simulation and start wasting your time with stupid unimportant silly arcade options???

What does simulation mean to you? I work in the simulation industry and quite often I simulate things that have never existed historically. A simulation isn't limited to modeling history or the scarcity of things in the real world. "What if" is perfectly acceptable. And the option to have a one piece screen is hardly what if, since it existed.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

What does simulation mean to you? I work in the simulation industry and quite often I simulate things that have never existed historically. A simulation isn't limited to modeling history or the scarcity of things in the real world. "What if" is perfectly acceptable. And the option to have a one piece screen is hardly what if, since it existed.

Why would what if be perfectly acceptable in a "flight simulator environment" were most aircraft designed, planned, but never built or built but being a failure were mostly because they didn't work, were suitable for the task intended, hadn't the proper technology to fulfil its intended duty, etc, etc, etc. It's not simulation if you make work a thing which never worked in the first place in real life. That's not "simulating" it, that's parallel Universe, that's exactly and precisely what's called dystopian stories, not real life and since they didn't work IRL the only simulation possible would be to recreate them in their non-working state, how they actually were, be it lame performance, bad behaviour, unable to comply its tasks, etc. Would be that so appealing to most users? I believe not much mate. What you're talking about is a dystopia where those managed to work flawlessly, not a "simulation".

That an imposible option then? Of course not, but that's material for an arcade game, not a simulator and some people tend to forget what the goal for a platform like DCS is, simulating, not recreating dystopias and/or people's wet dreams.

Grant you more about simulating, it can be a simulation if we're talking about scientific facts known but unachievable at the moment, be it for instance a well known space game (not the never ending kickstarter, the actually working one) or something like that. It's aimed at a distant future where nobody knows what will happen (hence dystopia), yet you simulate a whole galaxy with all it's systems in place, real sizes and real "flight" times provided some real scientific ideas managed to work, known real physics, etc, using scientific though untested or unavailable technologies, but it's dystopian on it's own way not trying to rewrite History yet simulating to the point you can. O.k. that's simulation. But if you say you're "simulating" a Bachem Natter which flew one single time killing it's pilot and not a single thing there worked as expected, not the parachute, not the rockets, not the separating parts, nothing, but you make it work that's not simulation, that's rewriting History to make it work, that's dystopian, and how on Earth could you "simulate" that without making it not work, that's the only simulation which would be faithful. Would that be alluring to the general public? I believe not mate, but that would be the only thing you could call a real simulation, mimic the real deal as it worked, or not worked. Your goal in simulation is real life, what ifs aren't real life .

 

Back on topic, Phantom did have different windscreens, the single piece one was tested and probed useless/worthless. Why should any developer waste their time with non working pieces when you have so much to actually simulate being such a high demanding task?? I'd prefer them to keep using their precious, invaluable and short time available in developing what they said they're developing, hence the working F-4E in both version they told. Nothing more. Why waste a single second of their time when they have several modules in their hands, and even this one is expected to continue with more versions (naval for sure)??? No more questions your honour.

 

P.S.: I get many if not all of these topics are just wet daydreaming and they get nowhere, but there're always some people treating them as a real and conceivable possibilities. Remember, expectations management mates.

[Exorcet]

19 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Why would what if be perfectly acceptable in a "flight simulator environment" were most aircraft designed, planned, but never built or built but being a failure were mostly because they didn't work, were suitable for the task intended, hadn't the proper technology to fulfil its intended duty, etc, etc, etc. It's not simulation if you make work a thing which never worked in the first place in real life. That's not "simulating" it, that's parallel Universe, that's exactly and precisely what's called dystopian stories, not real life and since they didn't work IRL the only simulation possible would be to recreate them in their non-working state, how they actually were, be it lame performance, bad behaviour, unable to comply its tasks, etc. Would be that so appealing to most users? I believe not much mate. What you're talking about is a dystopia where those managed to work flawlessly, not a "simulation".[/quote]

And yet so many people enjoy the F-14A because the engines suck compared to the B. Modeling limitations isn't a bad thing. Also, a simulator, what better way to get acquainted with why something failed, or didn't work by experiencing it yourself. The new canopy by itself is an excuse to create a few test missions on NTTR or something, with some creativity it could prove useful in DCS.

19 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

But if you say you're "simulating" a Bachem Natter which flew one single time killing it's pilot and not a single thing there worked as expected, not the parachute, not the rockets, not the separating parts, nothing, but you make it work that's not simulation, that's rewriting History to make it work, that's dystopian, and how on Earth could you "simulate" that without making it not work, that's the only simulation which would be faithful. Would that be alluring to the general public? I believe not mate, but that would be the only thing you could call a real simulation, mimic the real deal as it worked, or not worked. Your goal in simulation is real life, what ifs aren't real life .

I disagree. Simulation can be limited to specific domains. You've actually unintentionally pointed out a "flaw" in DCS simulation. We don't have to deal with reliability, well unless we opt in to random failures. By default every plane and weapon in DCS is 100% reliable, unlike history. If DCS had the Natter the reliability of its components would not be simulated, and it would likely work under idealized conditions, at least considering DCS's scope of simulation today. You say that such a simulation isn't useful or valid, but it is. It can provide an idea of what the Natter could be expected to achieve with more testing or development, without having to invest in said development.

 

Now of course simulating some things may take a few more liberties than others, but at the end of the day a simulator certainly has room for things outside of precise history. How worthwhile the Phantom's windscreen is would depend on its limitations and why it failed. Just because it wasn't a success or substantial improvement doesn't mean it should be rejected immediately in my opinion.

[_BringTheReign_]

Hey all, thank you for the additional info, it's been great to read about! To be fair, I didn't actually suggest HB model the single piece canopy, I was just curious and wanted to learn more about it. The Phantom has such a storied history, it's... phascinating. (I'll see myself out ) 

[Stackup]

1 hour ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

That's not "simulating" it, that's parallel Universe, that's exactly and precisely what's called dystopian stories

I'd avoid using dystopia in this context and replace it with fictional.  Having or not having a single piece windshield for the F-4 has nothing to with the collapse of society and people living in fear of the government or some other entity. 

Since there was limited use of the single-piece windshield, it would in fact, be simulating those exact airframes making your point about "not simulating" invalid.  However, unless I'm mistaken, the versions of the F-4E we are getting are not the same as the version that recieved the single piece windshield which I believe wasn't limited to the F-4E anyways among the few airframes that recieved it.  

[Ala13_ManOWar]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

And yet so many people enjoy the F-14A because the engines suck compared to the B. Modeling limitations isn't a bad thing. Also, a simulator, what better way to get acquainted with why something failed, or didn't work by experiencing it yourself. The new canopy by itself is an excuse to create a few test missions on NTTR or something, with some creativity it could prove useful in DCS.

Totally agree here about the Tomcat, I also enjoy the specific quirks of this or that model, that's simulating them to that point were you can experience those things even just in front of a PC screen, and that makes DCS great IMO.

37 minutes ago, Stackup said:

I'd avoid using dystopia in this context and replace it with fictional.  Having or not having a single piece windshield for the F-4 has nothing to with the collapse of society and people living in fear of the government or some other entity.

True, I'm no native and apparently in English the word is used with some connotations implied which aren't necessarily used in other countries, or not always, even though the Greek origin of the word means we all use and understand it in many languages. I used it here more in the meaning of an alternate History whatever it is, just that.

 

And to both, of course I'm aware there're and there can be inconsistencies and problems with the approach I'm telling, Ka-50 or Su-25T as we all know were just prototypes barely used, but they were anyway operational and working airframes leading to other models like Ka-52 and upgraded Su-25 I believe, those existed and flew. One can't tell those are any "fictional" airframes, even though of limited use. But nobody declared them worthless, just prototypes to go somewhere else later on.

I'll use here an example I've used many times whenever people ask for weird, barely or not used, prototypes variants, etc. The day we get a Bf109E I'm sure there'll be people asking why we aren't getting Galland's ashtray and telescope, because once one aircraft existed using those . Yes, it existed, not sure about how useful those mods were even to Galland himself who asked for them to his crew members. But come on, are those really necessary? Would those, aside from taking developing time which could be used elsewhere, make any difference in the simulation? It's as simple as that.

[streakeagle]

To the best of my knowledge, the test was successful, but the aircraft were being retired/sold, so the USAF stopped spending money on upgrading the F-4. I think one or more examples with the one-piece windshield served and may still be serving in Greece.

[Pede]

On 1/21/2023 at 10:11 AM, Nodak said:

 

In the old days pre Desert Storm one. they were actually a distinct and separate command and did not answer to the Pentagram.  The Guard Bureau was a power unto itself until the Pentagram had the opportunity to strangle it through mission assignment and funding during the post cold war draw down and realignment, those who failed to bend over were dissolved and stripped of missions and aircraft.  

I always wondered about this; the Air national guard is organized and managed very differently than their equivalent Army component. AFAIK even today the ground component is still under the command of state governments and not the pentagon unlike the ANG. 

[Biggus]

I've spent a few days using the virtual 3D cockpits here whilst designing some panels for my abbreviated home cockpit and at some point I looked up to the windscreens, where I noticed a pretty large difference.  I believe this is the one-piece windshield on an F-4G. Compare it to the F-4C here.  Whilst the height of the camera is a bit different, that canopy bow is very chunky on the one-piece.

[Bananabrai]

I agree, I would be cool to have as a checkbox option in ME, but looks really funky, actually a bit strange.

Don't know if I like the looks of this or not. 

[Jojothebox]

On 1/26/2023 at 1:06 PM, _BringTheReign_ said:

Hey all, thank you for the additional info, it's been great to read about! To be fair, I didn't actually suggest HB model the single piece canopy, I was just curious and wanted to learn more about it. The Phantom has such a storied history, it's... phascinating. (I'll see myself out ) 

i won’t lie. i’d never see the one piece before. it kinda looks like the F-4 stole it from the F-15, if the F-4 did steal it tho i hope it wasn’t a Phelony (hold the door, i’m right behind you)

Edited February 24, 2023 by Jojothebox

[Jojothebox]

On 2/22/2023 at 7:24 AM, Bananabrai said:

I agree, I would be cool to have as a checkbox option in ME, but looks really funky, actually a bit strange.

Don't know if I like the looks of this or not. 

i agree but it also would be so much work. there’d have to be a secondary flight model and 3d model that’d have to be tested and coded and bug checked and updated and it would just be so much work like i’d love it but that much for something that little..?