Phantoms and Slats. Opinions?

[macelena 1,070]

Technically, leading edge slats changed Phantoms into a different animal, and as far as i know USAF F-4Es recieved them even as a conversion after having been delivered with the usual wing configuration, however the Navy was somewhat reluctant to the idea. What's your take on it? I've been trying with both and i often find myself more comfortable playing with older variants as they seem to fit better with what I'm used to get from a Phantom, stay fast, use the vertical, managing energy and so on, while with the slatted ones i never quite know when to go for a turning fight or treat it like i do the classic ones. 

I just played a mission several times against MiG-23MLDs with both F-4Es with slats and F-4Ds, and I felt the latter were much quicker and smoother, although this likely has more to do with me being better used to them.

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by macelena
Idiotic writing

[+dtmdragon 2,606]

I agree and find I fight with the D more successfully for the same reasons. Sometimes I think the slatted E seems to dump a ton of airspeed/ energy when you pull sharply into the vertical and the slats deploy. Same during the initial higher speed turns during a turning fight.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Wing slats were added to improve high AoA performance so you can fly slower with less buffeting and they may have helped with the adverse Yaw issue.

But they did add a bit of weight to the E Block 50 and when they are out there is more drag so climb, & acceleration would go down compared to an earlier E model.

It was a bit easier to pull G and exceed airframe limits over earlier Es  and it has slightly improved turn performance but really nothing significant just like any of these aircraft where they just added a little strake on here or there.

The recommendation was to keep under 25 degrees AoA because above that there is higher speed bleed off compared to the hard wing versions and less lift.

 

 

 

 

 

[+streakeagle 864]

Dogfight a MiG-17 or MiG-19 with an unslatted F-4J, then repeat the fight with a slatted F-4E. The hard wing has less drag, so it is better in level flight, climbs, dives... anytime you need acceleration/power, except in turns. But if you need to turn, the slatted F-4E flies rings around unslatted F-4's. If you are a patient boom and zoom energy fighter type, the hard wing F-4s are the way to go. But if you have to get in close, the slatted F-4s are the only way to go and the much lighter F-4F is the king.

The key to the slats wasn't just to improve turn performance, but to completely eliminate the nasty adverse yaw induced flat spin that occurred at high AoA at any speed. The Navy believed the solution was better pilot training, but when the F-4S finally got slats, the Navy was admitting the safety and agility were worth the loss of specific excess power.

I enjoy flying both. I like the challenge of fighting MiG up close with a hard wing. But one on one, it is almost impossible to beat a MiG-17 until he runs low on fuel and tries to run away. You can stay above him and go faster, but you can't get behind him. With a slatted F-4E, there is no AI flown plane in the game I can't beat, even the F-15A.

If you don't need the gun, the slatted F-4S has agility/safety and the best original radar (not counting modern refits with Hornet and Falcon radars).

If you don't need the slats or gun, the RAF F-4M with turbofans is the hotrod at subsonic speeds with more climb and acceleration. 

If I can only fly one, it would be a slatted USAF F-4E. In any given time frame, USAF F-4Es received continuous field mods that kept them competitive in both air and ground attack. The radar, navigation, and bombing systems were constantly improved/digitized. A handful of the last F-4Es even got a frameless front windshield. But the slatted F-4S is a close 2nd. 

Edited May 31, 2021 by streakeagle

[macelena 1,070]

9 hours ago, streakeagle said:

Dogfight a MiG-17 or MiG-19 with an unslatted F-4J, then repeat the fight with a slatted F-4E. The hard wing has less drag, so it is better in level flight, climbs, dives... anytime you need acceleration/power, except in turns. But if you need to turn, the slatted F-4E flies rings around unslatted F-4's. If you are a patient boom and zoom energy fighter type, the hard wing F-4s are the way to go. But if you have to get in close, the slatted F-4s are the only way to go and the much lighter F-4F is the king.

...

I enjoy flying both. I like the challenge of fighting MiG up close with a hard wing. But one on one, it is almost impossible to beat a MiG-17 until he runs low on fuel and tries to run away. You can stay above him and go faster, but you can't get behind him. With a slatted F-4E, there is no AI flown plane in the game I can't beat, even the F-15A.

...

 

I think part of that, at least ingame, has to do with Navy Sidewinders. While I can't see any practical difference during the Linebacker timeframe, when the slats came about, between AIM-9Js and G/Hs, for the rest of the war I think they are much better than USAF  AIM-9Es.  You don't need to keep up against MiG-17s to get a good shot with Sidewinders. Earlier than Js with the USAF against MiG-17s, I just go vertical and hope i don't screw leading them up with the gunpods.

Edited May 31, 2021 by macelena

[+Crusader 2,050]

24 minutes ago, macelena said:

...you don't need to keep up against MiG-17s to get a good shot with Sidewinders. ...

Presently the missiles have a "super seeker" when "Seeker Uncage" is enabled. Thats what makes it easy to get a lock... seeker scans a 80° cone.
I'm working on a mod which is fixing this for all AIM-9. Then you have to point the seeker with its 2° instant FOV (9J/N/P) directly at the target.
Makes it much harder vs the nimble MiG-17/19.

[macelena 1,070]

15 minutes ago, Crusader said:

Presently the missiles have a "super seeker" when "Seeker Uncage" is enabled. Thats what makes it easy to get a lock... seeker scans a 80° cone.
I'm working on a mod which is fixing this for all AIM-9. Then you have to point the seeker with its 2° instant FOV (9J/N/P) directly at the target.
Makes it much harder vs the nimble MiG-17/19.

That would be great. Not just for realism and challenge, at some points I'm not even sure about what they are locked onto. Some friendly fire incidents may or may have not ocurred. 

[+dtmdragon 2,606]

11 hours ago, streakeagle said:

Dogfight a MiG-17 or MiG-19 with an unslatted F-4J, then repeat the fight with a slatted F-4E. The hard wing has less drag, so it is better in level flight, climbs, dives... anytime you need acceleration/power, except in turns. But if you need to turn, the slatted F-4E flies rings around unslatted F-4's. If you are a patient boom and zoom energy fighter type, the hard wing F-4s are the way to go. But if you have to get in close, the slatted F-4s are the only way to go and the much lighter F-4F is the king.

The key to the slats wasn't just to improve turn performance, but to completely eliminate the nasty adverse yaw induced flat spin that occurred at high AoA at any speed. The Navy believed the solution was better pilot training, but when the F-4S finally got slats, the Navy was admitting the safety and agility were worth the loss of specific excess power.

I enjoy flying both. I like the challenge of fighting MiG up close with a hard wing. But one on one, it is almost impossible to beat a MiG-17 until he runs low on fuel and tries to run away. You can stay above him and go faster, but you can't get behind him. With a slatted F-4E, there is no AI flown plane in the game I can't beat, even the F-15A.

If you don't need the gun, the slatted F-4S has agility/safety and the best original radar (not counting modern refits with Hornet and Falcon radars).

If you don't need the slats or gun, the RAF F-4M with turbofans is the hotrod at subsonic speeds with more climb and acceleration. 

If I can only fly one, it would be a slatted USAF F-4E. In any given time frame, USAF F-4Es received continuous field mods that kept them competitive in both air and ground attack. The radar, navigation, and bombing systems were constantly improved/digitized. A handful of the last F-4Es even got a frameless front windshield. But the slatted F-4S is a close 2nd. 

I have an "air to air template" single mission saved that puts 2 groups of aircraft into a neutral merge at 15,000 feet. All AI ability settings are equal etc and there are no SAM/ AAA. The AI group has 10 aircraft and the player controlled group had 12. This allowes you to order your single wingman to return to base (after you time compress to the merge), then order the squadron to engage air targets and eject yourself before the merge. I then speed up time until all the fighting is over and then end the mission. The kill to loss ratio (minus the loss of yourself from ejecting) gives a good DACT simulation of one aircraft type against another.

You have to remove your wingman as his AI doesn't behave like the rest of the AI aircraft after you eject. And aircraft without an internal gun need a 'gun pod only' loadout.

I have a variation with a greater distance after the time compression to the merge to run simulations of BVR engagements as well. I use the same steps as above to ensure it is an even AI v AI match with only the aircraft/ weapon systems being different.

Edited June 1, 2021 by dtmdragon

[+streakeagle 864]

In real life, Cunnningham could not get better than a neutral position against a MiG-17 in 1 vs 1. The MiG-17 climbed with him and easily turned inside him. The best he could do was extend and come back for another head on merge. It was only when the MiG lit his afterburner and tried to disengage that he got a shot. Cunningham knew how to fly an F-4. Clearly the other pilot, aka "Colonel Tomb", knew how to fly the MiG-17. It it had been a MiG-19, I am pretty sure Cunningham would have been shot down, as it has comparable power and retains superior agility. F-4s did as well as they did principally because of the skill and experience of the pilots favored the US, especially the USN, and because when you fight in numbers like 4 vs 4, agility is less important than mutual support and situational awareness. The Navy's AIM-9D, G, and H did a lot to improve their kill ratio, but first and foremost it was their training and tactics that won the day over the USAF and VPAF.

The addition of slats and a gun made the F-4 a much better WVR fighter. I would love to have seen a match between the best USAF pilots in slatted F-4Es vs the best USN pilots in F-4Js. My money would be on the F-4E: the slats unleashed the F-4's high AoA capability going from a practical limit between 18 to 22 degrees depending on pilot skill and confidence to 25 to 30 degrees with no special skills required. More g, less drag, and better snapshot potential. The F-4J would have better acceleration and climb when unloaded, but ask Cunningham what happens when you climb better than an opponent with guns. For BVR with the AIM-7, the F-4J should have been superior in almost every way... but history shows the USN didn't do well with AIM-7 at all. The AIM-7 was too delicate for carrier ops. Captive flight hours killed the reliability. To be fair, the USAF did better for three reasons: 1) their AIM-9s sucked, so they had to try AIM-7s, 2) units like the 555th had special groom teams from the radar and missile manufacturers trying to keep the radars and missiles in pristine condition between flights, and finally, the big one that finally permitted BVR shots: Combat Tree (the system that exploited enemy IFF to reliably confirm bandits on radar).

Despite its poor performance, I love the AIM-7. As it turns out, the F-4D's radar did better with the AIM-7 than the F-4E in Vietnam. So they tended to pair them up: an F-4Ds for BVR and F-4Es for WVR. The F-4E's radar had a smaller antenna that was also elliptical rather than round, so its vertical beam wasn't the best increasing ground clutter. F-4E's APQ-120 had something F-4Ds didn't: COORDS, an early form of doppler/lookdown, but it didn't work very well. The F-4D's radar proved to be more reliable and have better range. Like the F-4J's AWG-10, the APQ-120 would overcome its early teething troubles and get better over time. But not in time for Vietnam.

Given AIM-9L/M and AIM-7M, the slatted F-4S was a great fighter for MiG-17/19/21/23 combat. If the F-4K/M Phantoms had gotten slats, they would have been monsters with AIM-9L/M in close and Skyflash being nearly as good as an AIM-7M (it only had the AIM-7E engine, so it didn't have the range and speed of the AIM-7M despite being the first with the inverse monopulse seeker).

My dream version was the Israeli "Super Phantom" with PW turbofans. It would have been equal to the USAF's late F-4E, but with even more power than the RAF F-4s, and the installation didn't require the changes that RAF F-4s needed to accommodate the larger Spey turbofans... so more power and no drag increase. The airframe load limits still held back the instantaneous performance, but the sustained performance was substantially better. The MiG-23MLD was an F-4 killer with better power and comparable or superior agility, but the Super Phantom would have put the F-4 back on top.

[+dtmdragon 2,606]

4 hours ago, streakeagle said:

My dream version was the Israeli "Super Phantom" with PW turbofans. It would have been equal to the USAF's late F-4E, but with even more power than the RAF F-4s, and the installation didn't require the changes that RAF F-4s needed to accommodate the larger Spey turbofans... so more power and no drag increase. The airframe load limits still held back the instantaneous performance, but the sustained performance was substantially better. The MiG-23MLD was an F-4 killer with better power and comparable or superior agility, but the Super Phantom would have put the F-4 back on top.

I haven't touched it since it was released and I'm sure it could benefit with some updating from the recent amazing Phantom releases we have seen lately: https://combatace.com/files/file/13512-israeli-aerospace-industries-iai-f-4e-kurnass-super-phantom-2000-for-strike-fighters-2/