wagsled

To all Phantom Drivers (especially those frustrated by the dogfight performance of all F-4 models): After deciding to check out the Phantom FM's as suggested by another virtual pilot here, I got fairly serious and flew several Combat Air Patrol missions with the F-4B. I used SFP1, fully patched, desert terrain, year selected was 1969. Load was 4 x AIM-9E, 4 x AIM-7E, centerline gun pod, no external tanks. All ended up as two-plane flights and the bogies were always MiG-21's for some reason; in the last mission there were 10 of them. (Believe me, I would have bugged out after a kill or two in real-life with those kind of odds, but since I can only hurt my pride here I stayed to fight.) Anyway, I used the FM mods - further tweaked - that I suggested in an earlier thread, now shown here: [FlightControl] StallSpeed=65.15 CruiseSpeed=246.93 ClimbSpeed=231.5 CornerSpeed=216.07 MaxG=7.50 MaxSpeedSL=377.75 MachLimit=2.14 PitchDamper=0.75 RollDamper=0.4 YawDamper=0.1 GunBoresightAngle=-2 RocketBoresightAngle=-5 I'm pretty sure these are good numbers (at least for now) and I thought that the performance of the F-4B with these settings was similar to real life. Handling qualities are still a bit off, but I'm not smart enough to figure out how to change them. Now to the tactics. The following are basic suggestions (as I remember them) directly from the USN TOPGUN School and the USMC Air Combat Tactics Instructor (ACTI) courses on how to fight low-wing-loaded opponents like the MiG-17's and -21's. If you use these along with some good common sense, the Phantom can be a real MiG killer...we proved it in Vietnam, over and over. 1. Fight them vertically - use the power of the Phantom and keep your speed up. Except at the top of the "egg", don't let your speed drop below 350 KIAS and only do that when you have to. Also, the MiG-17 doesn't roll well at high speed - no power boost on the controls. 2. Use lag-pursuit...best described as putting yourself in a pursuit curve that leads your a/c to a deep six o'clock position on the bogey. Think of it like a cone or funnel that the bogey drags around behind him with the small end on his tailpipe. You want to be in the wide part of the funnel, usually between 3/4 mile and 1 mile astern. Remember, the Phantom's primary weapon in a dogfight is the AIM-9, not the gun. Gun kills are the best - believe me, I know - but the gun is really there for situations when you just get too close and can't back off to beyond the AIM-9's minimum range - or for when you are out of missiles and can't bug out! Also, Navy and Marine birds didn't always carry a gun pod, so it wasn't even an option sometimes. 3. If you start getting slow, try to pass the bogey as close to 180 degree out as you can, unload (push the nose over), stroke the burners and extend. And, ladies and gents, I'm talking extend to five or six miles separation. Get lots of knots, 550+, select boresight on the radar and the AIM-7E, pitch up and back into the fight, auto acquire that bad-boy and shoot him in the face with the Sparrow. You'll find this works pretty well. 4. Finally, if you are getting into a bad position, tell your wingman to head for home, unload, go for the deck and get the hell out of there. You can always live to fight another day. Using the above tactics (and a whole bunch of luck), I managed to get six of those ten MiG-21's I mentioned earlier, even though my wingman went down early in the fight, and then I flew home to land. Not a bad mission and, believe me, not at all representative of what a real dogfight against those odds would have been like. I truly doubt I could have made it home had that situation ever presented itself in 'Nam. Also, with my wingman down early, I would have taken the first opportunity to get the hell out of there. Four guys on the ground that need to be rescued is a lot worse than two! Well, enough of my rambling. To those who want to give this a try, I'd love to hear some feedback. To those of you who already knew these tactics - apologies for taking up your time! Salute to all, Wagsled

I've managed to get the F/A-18A from MF installed and working in WOI. I have some problems with the HUD, however, as follows: 1. Pitch ladder is very soft focus - nearly unreadable 2. Flight Path Marker sits well below the horizon line when in level flight (it should be level with the line) 3. Gun shoots ~3 or 4 mils right of the pipper in both A/A and A/G modes (with zero yaw) If anyone has ideas, I will certainly welcome them. Thanks, Wagsled

To all Phantom Drivers (especially those frustrated by the dogfight performance of all F-4 models): After deciding to check out the Phantom FM's as suggested by another virtual pilot here, I got fairly serious and flew several Combat Air Patrol missions with the F-4B. I used SFP1, fully patched, desert terrain, year selected was 1969. Load was 4 x AIM-9E, 4 x AIM-7E, centerline gun pod, no external tanks. All ended up as two-plane flights and the bogies were always MiG-21's for some reason; in the last mission there were 10 of them. (Believe me, I would have bugged out after a kill or two in real-life with those kind of odds, but since I can only hurt my pride here I stayed to fight.) Anyway, I used the FM mods - further tweaked - that I suggested in an earlier thread, now shown here: [FlightControl] StallSpeed=65.15 CruiseSpeed=246.93 ClimbSpeed=231.5 CornerSpeed=216.07 MaxG=7.50 MaxSpeedSL=377.75 MachLimit=2.14 PitchDamper=0.75 RollDamper=0.4 YawDamper=0.1 GunBoresightAngle=-2 RocketBoresightAngle=-5 I'm pretty sure these are good numbers (at least for now) and I thought that the performance of the F-4B with these settings was similar to real life. Handling qualities are still a bit off, but I'm not smart enough to figure out how to change them. Now to the tactics. The following are basic suggestions (as I remember them) directly from the USN TOPGUN School and the USMC Air Combat Tactics Instructor (ACTI) courses on how to fight low-wing-loaded opponents like the MiG-17's and -21's. If you use these along with some good common sense, the Phantom can be a real MiG killer...we proved it in Vietnam, over and over. 1. Fight them vertically - use the power of the Phantom and keep your speed up. Except at the top of the "egg", don't let your speed drop below 350 KIAS and only do that when you have to. Also, the MiG-17 doesn't roll well at high speed - no power boost on the controls. 2. Use lag-pursuit...best described as putting yourself in a pursuit curve that leads your a/c to a deep six o'clock position on the bogey. Think of it like a cone or funnel that the bogey drags around behind him with the small end on his tailpipe. You want to be in the wide part of the funnel, usually between 3/4 mile and 1 mile astern. Remember, the Phantom's primary weapon in a dogfight is the AIM-9, not the gun. Gun kills are the best - believe me, I know - but the gun is really there for situations when you just get too close and can't back off to beyond the AIM-9's minimum range - or for when you are out of missiles and can't bug out! Also, Navy and Marine birds didn't always carry a gun pod, so it wasn't even an option sometimes. 3. If you start getting slow, try to pass the bogey as close to 180 degree out as you can, unload (push the nose over), stroke the burners and extend. And, ladies and gents, I'm talking extend to five or six miles separation. Get lots of knots, 550+, select boresight on the radar and the AIM-7E, pitch up and back into the fight, auto acquire that bad-boy and shoot him in the face with the Sparrow. You'll find this works pretty well. 4. Finally, if you are getting into a bad position, tell your wingman to head for home, unload, go for the deck and get the hell out of there. You can always live to fight another day. Using the above tactics (and a whole bunch of luck), I managed to get six of those ten MiG-21's I mentioned earlier, even though my wingman went down early in the fight, and then I flew home to land. Not a bad mission and, believe me, not at all representative of what a real dogfight against those odds would have been like. I truly doubt I could have made it home had that situation ever presented itself in 'Nam. Also, with my wingman down early, I would have taken the first opportunity to get the hell out of there. Four guys on the ground that need to be rescued is a lot worse than two! Well, enough of my rambling. To those who want to give this a try, I'd love to hear some feedback. To those of you who already knew these tactics - apologies for taking up your time! Salute to all, Wagsled

Hi Crusader, When I was with VMFA-312 at Beaufort MCAS in 1975 and I think later with VMFA-251 deployed to Iwakuni MCAS, Japan, we had the VTAS helmet system, but only briefly if my failing memory serves me. VTAS required a special helmet/visor combination connected electrically to the VTAS control box in the left console (I think) in the cockpit by a rather thick, braided electrical cord. The helmet had a large housing for the VTAS visor which had an electrically projected sight. It may also have provided some HUD-type info (altitude, airspeed, etc.) but I can't be sure of that. (I may be mixing the VTAS up with some later testing I did using a more advanced helmet system on the F/A-18.) VTAS did have a sight projected on the visor - that much I do remember! The VTAS cord wasn't very flexible and somewhat restricted movement in the cockpit, the helmet was bulky and heavy (when you pulled G it was really tough to keep your head up, even for Marines!), and it had a fairly low MTBF. When it worked, it allowed us to slave the seeker head on the AIM-9 toward a target that would normally be outside the caged seeker cone. I think we could go as much as 60-degrees off boresight, but don't hold me to that. That allowed us, in a dogfight, to acquire a target with the AIM-9 without having to get in the narrow rear-quarter cone (which, of course, we had to do without VTAS). You could get a good tone and perhaps a shot, while still maneuvering at higher aspect angles. I think the weight, sketchy performance, and poor reliability eventually caught up with the system and we stopped using it, although that specific event doesn't stick out in my memory. I just recall that we tried it for a while and then stopped using it. Sorry for the lack of detail, but that's all I remember about VTAS. Regards, Wagsled Crusader: Guess I should have read the articles in the links you provided before I responded. Just looked through them and there is a lot of info there - much more than my poor memory can provide! W.

Sorry to hear about your dad, Toonces. I wonder if I knew him? Sadly, too many of those who flew in that era have "moved on" - hopefully to a place where there is a good bar, a clear sky, and lots of 2v2 sorties. As a RIO with Trip Trey, he was one of the best and you should be very proud of him and what he accomplished. Semper Fi! Wagsled

Hi Storm, I would be very interested in your thoughts regarding both the tactics and the .ini modification. If you have time to post them, I would appreciate it - either here or in a new thread. Regards, Wagsled

The F-16 is a 9-g bird; not sure about the F-15, but I think it was a 9-g bird as well. Hornet was 8.3-g, at least the A and B models. I think they raised it to 9-g for the C/D and/or the E/F, but I was retired by then! Wags

Thank you very much for this, FastCargo. It worked like a champ and now the HUD looks pretty much as I remember it. I initially thought that whoever built the cockpit/avionics model for the F/A-18A had perhaps used an F-16A HUD as a starting point, hence the analog scales for airspeed and altitude, but then with the fuzzy graphics I wasn't sure what I had. I very much appreciate your help. In some small repayment, in the event you decide to fly the F/A-18A for a bit, I've modified the FlightControl section found in the FA-18_data.ini file so that the handling qualities are a bit more in line with reality. I really wish the pitch authority of the Hornet were as good as the original FM indicated, but it was far too responsive. I flew a lot of the FOT&E work on the F/A-18A and B models, including a lot of FQ&P so I think I'm fairly close in my estimates here. What I have below is a start on a better FM, but frankly it seems like there is more to be done. I just don't have enough knowledge of the data.ini files to know where to start. The changes I've made below reflect a more realistic response in all three axes, as well as more realistic speeds for stall, cruise, etc. The F/A-18A was limited to 8.3 g depending on GW, but we typically tried to hold it to around 8.0 as a max. Once we got the g-limiter perfected and installed the new flight control PROM (early 1985, if I recall correctly) then overstress became much less of a problem. If you give these a try, I'd love to hear your thoughts. [FlightControl] StallSpeed=55.44 CruiseSpeed=231.5 ClimbSpeed=220.2 CornerSpeed=195.5 MaxG=8.0 MaxSpeedSL=365.0 MachLimit=1.90 PitchDamper=0.90 RollDamper=0.4 YawDamper=0.2 GunBoresightAngle=1.0 RocketBoresightAngle=-3 Thank you again for your help with the HUD! Cheers, Wags

I'll try, FastCargo...never even took a screenshot before...let's hope I can paste it in here... F/A-18 HUD problem Well, I've pasted something in. Hopefully, it is the HUD from the screenshot. Disregard the 20mm shooting to the right...it didn't do it today. Please let me know if I've messed this up. And thanks for your interest and help. Wagsled FA18_HUD_fuzzy_2.bmp

FastCargo is quite correct. With about 4,600 hours in a variety of US fighters, 3 years advanced jet instructor, two tours in 'Nam, and eight years as a test pilot, I can strongly attest to his advice. As much fun as the various combat flight sims are - and each has its pros and cons - there is no substitute for getting a good understanding of the basics of VFR and IFR flight - and MSFS is the best way (short of taking ground school and flight training) that I know of to get a solid start on your flying career. FastCargo has it right; listen to him. Best of luck to you! Wagsled

Sorry to hear that, Typhoid. You'd think we would have learned by now... Wags

Hi CoolHand29, I never heard of anyone carrying binoculars in a Phantom except perhaps the WSO or RIO on a fast FAC mission. Even then they would be very difficult to use under 1 g conditions because of helmet, visor and mask - put on another g or two during even mild maneuvering and most of us couldn't have held them up to our eyes. I know my dad used binoculars (I still have his) when flying the F-6F at Okinawa during WWII, but I think they used them mostly for spotting/identifying Japanese ships. As for breaking the ROE with a 'bag and drag", assuming the bogey followed you out of the furball I think even the most ardent supporter of the ROE would agree he was a "combatant" and you could shoot him in the face with an AIM-7. It was done with some success in 'Nam and, to my knowledge, no one ever raised an eyebrow. As for keeping sight of the bogey chasing you, man, that's what back-seater's were for! A good WSO or RIO could keep sight until you had at least 2 to 3 miles separation. Then give it another 15 or 20 seconds and pitch back toward where you last had a tally...he'll be somewhere near there and the auto acquisition on the F-4 radar was actually pretty good. If you didn't get a lock or a tally, then blow through and try it again - or better yet, bug out for home and hit the bar! Cheers for now, Wags

"Drag and Bag" is indeed a proven ACM technique, CoolHand29! It works if you can get a single to follow you away from the fight, especially if you get enough distance between (5 -6 NM) to pitch back and give him an AIM-7 shot in the face. This works especially well if he gets frustrated at you bugging out at a higher speed and elects to turn away. Then, when you pitch back into him, you have a stern shot with the Sparrow or, if that fails or you are too close, an AIM-9. Lots of ways to skin the bogey... As for our equipment making air combat against the tighter turning MiGs more difficult, that was only part of the problem. Get someone to tell you about the ROE (Rules of Engagement) we operated under. There were many times when we (the aircrew) weren't sure who was making the rules - our side or theirs! Cheers for now, Wags

Thanks to all of you for the very kind comments and thoughts. Like many who pushed military airplanes around the skies, I did it partly for my country (which I love deeply), partly for myself (because I loved to fly more than just about anything), and partly because of the pilots I had a chance to serve with as well as those who had served before. Many were - as are many who serve our country today - real heroes. I salute all of them, past and present, and thank them for their courage and sacrifice. Semper Fi! Wags

I flew the F-4 with the USAF during 'Nam and we didn't carry them very often on the F-4C and D models. The SUU-23 was, to say the least, unreliable, and often jammed after firing only a few rounds. When I transferred to the Marine Corps after the war, we hardly ever used them in training. They were also difficult to keep maintained and, I'm told by my USMC and USN friends, didn't handle carrier landings all that well during the war. The SUU-23 was a "band-aid" for Robert McNamara's decision to take guns off US fighters. Most of the time, the SUU-23 would have made a good anchor for a large ship or a stop to keep the hanger doors open. Since the SUU-23 was so unreliable, most of us considered it to be a lot of weight to lug around and it took up a valuable hardpoint on the F-4 that could be used for more fuel or ordnance. Others may have had a better experience with the SUU-23 gun pod...if so, please say so as I don't want to be the sole source of info on this beast. Cheers, Wags

Actually, Mike, I was going to add a note to the information I provided earlier regarding the normal two types of enroute descent used in the F-4; i.e. either idle or half-nozzle. I suggested using your altitude (in feet) as the number of nautical miles out to start the idle descent and two times altitude for the half-nozzle descent. When I tried both last evening (just to see how they worked out), I actually needed about 2.5 times altitude for idle and nearly 4 times altitude for the half-nozzle descent - both of which I think are too much. This leads me to believe that the drag coefficient on the model is not correct (as suggested by the Phantom driver you mentioned) and this seems further supported when you do a break turn (hard as possible at idle power) to avoid a missile. In the real F-4, you dropped speed really quickly (450 KIAS to 200 KIAS in less than 180 degrees of turn, if I recall correctly). The model in the sim just doesn't bleed energy that quickly at idle. It bleeds off a bit closer to reality at full power during a hard turn, but still not as fast as I recall. Remember, the Phantom flew on power - living proof that if you put enough power on a barn door, you could get it to fly. Without power, the Phantom had all the flying characteristics of a brick. Cheers, Wags

Let me know what you think about these changes, GreyCap. You may - or may not - like them...it depends a lot on what you expect from the game. I personally look upon this as mostly just good fun, although I admit to wanting to get the FM for each model to be as close to reality as the game parameters allow. If I feel like the a/c is performing in a somewhat similar fashion to the real thing, then I'm perfectly happy. I know we aren't going to get full flight fidelity in handling qualities and performance and I can live with that in order to have flexibility for modification as the TW games have. Regarding g-force effects, I have been told they can be modified. When I have time, I'll probably mess about with those settings a bit to see if I can get what I consider close to reality. If I can do that, I'll publish what I find for those who want to try them. Regards, Wags

Hi Mike, You are correct in your assumption regarding climbout after hitting the target or exiting the target area. Usually the altitude you climb to depends on how far you have to go to reach homeplate or a tanker as well as how much fuel you have when you start the climb. For "normalcy" in this sim I suggest climbing to 20-25K unless you are a really long way from home and are already at Bingo minus for fuel. That should work out well in almost all cases. One thought about fuel; since there is no aerial refueling and since tankers played such an important part of our operations in 'Nam and in the Gulf War (not sure about the Israelis, but they typically operate with much shorter mission ranges), I suggest you use the Normal setting for fuel. This sim seems to half your fuel used if you use that setting vs the Hard which sucks it up pretty much the way the Phantom really did. Otherwise you'll run short of fuel on any long or complex mission (read as lots of MiGs) and there is no place to top off or at least pick up that 2-3K pounds that will get you home. I hit the post-strike tanker on more than one occasion needing fuel right then or I was going to have to use the nylon descent mode...not the ideal choice! There were two main types of enroute (VFR) descent used in the F-4; (1) Using Idle power, which results in a fairly steep descent and is started much closer to the field (rough estimate is to take your altitude in feet and start descent that many nautical miles (NM) from where you want to enter the traffic pattern), or (2) Use a "half nozzle" descent which means you set your power to hold half open nozzles and use that power during the descent. You'll make some small adjustments as you descend, but its easy to do. (BTW, the instruments showing nozzle position for both engines are at the very bottom of the engine instruments on the F-4 panel.) Rule of thumb, if I remember correctly, was to start a half-nozzle descent at about twice your altitude (again in NM from your pattern entry point). I'm trying to recall the proper airspeed for both these descents and, as best I can recall, we used 350 KIAS. That could be off, however, as it's been 22 years since I last flew an F-4S at Pax River Naval Air Test Center in Maryland the day before I retired. As I write this, that seems impossible - but there you go...getting old means you're just a "has been". Anyway, hope this helps a bit. Cheers, Wags

Sorry, pfunk, I think you may have missed the point. We did (and still do) mourn and miss all the comrades we lost. What I was referring to was the radio call #4 made and the panic it showed. If the story is true and number four did punch out, trust me, we would move heaven and earth to get him back. I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression. Wagsled

Two things I can think of that might add to the realism: 1. It seems to me that the damage done by a mere 1 or 2 rounds of 20mm or 30mm cannon fire, not to mention the .50 cal guns in the earlier jets is a bit out of proportion. Granted, a lot depends on where your rounds hit and the sturdiness (or lack thereof) of the target aircraft, but I've seen Phantoms come back with quite a bit of damage, i.e. hit by several rounds from a ZSU-23 and a guy in my squadron had a huge hole where a 37mm hit right in front of the canopy. An Israeli F-15 pilot brought his bird back and landed with only a stub left of his right wing. Yet, I seem to get kills with only 1 round hitting the bogey...that seems a bit too easy. 2. I would love to have new voice comm. In my two years in combat in 'Nam no one ever said, "I see them" in a dogfight. The terms were "Visual" which means I have my lead or a friendly a/c in sight, "Tally" means I have your bogey in sight, and "No Joy" means I don't see the subject of the call, friendly or hostile. The term for being out of ammo is "Winchester" not. "I'm out of gun ammo." Also, no one ever called out, "I'm taking damage" or "I can't shake him" in a quavering voice. Fighter pilots pride themselves on staying cool, even when the feces is hitting the rotating impeller - no one I ever flew with would be caught dead saying the things I've mentioned. I personally heard one of my squadron mates getting ready to eject from a burning F-4D over N. Vietnam, facing possible death and almost certain capture, say quite calmly, "Okay, we're outta here" before pulling the handle. (Note: They both made it back after the release of our POWs in 1973.) I heard a story involving a flight of four F-100's making a strike in Route Pack 1 in 1966 or 1967. Ground fire was very heavy and number four, who was last on the target, pulled out screaming over the radio, "I'm hit, I'm hit, I'm hit." Lead comes back over the radio and says, rather laconically , "Shut up, Four, and die like a man." I'm not saying it's true, but it could have been given the way guys really talked on the radio. Just some thoughts... Wagsled

To all Phantom Drivers (especially those frustrated by the dogfight performance of all F-4 models): After deciding to check out the Phantom FM's as suggested by another virtual pilot here, I got fairly serious and flew several Combat Air Patrol missions with the F-4B. I used SFP1, fully patched, desert terrain, year selected was 1969. Load was 4 x AIM-9E, 4 x AIM-7E, centerline gun pod, no external tanks. All ended up as two-plane flights and the bogies were always MiG-21's for some reason; in the last mission there were 10 of them. (Believe me, I would have bugged out after a kill or two in real-life with those kind of odds, but since I can only hurt my pride here I stayed to fight.) Anyway, I used the FM mods - further tweaked - that I suggested in an earlier thread, now shown here: [FlightControl] StallSpeed=65.15 CruiseSpeed=246.93 ClimbSpeed=231.5 CornerSpeed=216.07 MaxG=7.50 MaxSpeedSL=377.75 MachLimit=2.14 PitchDamper=0.75 RollDamper=0.4 YawDamper=0.1 GunBoresightAngle=-2 RocketBoresightAngle=-5 I'm pretty sure these are good numbers (at least for now) and I thought that the performance of the F-4B with these settings was similar to real life. Handling qualities are still a bit off, but I'm not smart enough to figure out how to change them. Now to the tactics. The following are basic suggestions (as I remember them) directly from the USN TOPGUN School and the USMC Air Combat Tactics Instructor (ACTI) courses on how to fight low-wing-loaded opponents like the MiG-17's and -21's. If you use these along with some good common sense, the Phantom can be a real MiG killer...we proved it in Vietnam, over and over. 1. Fight them vertically - use the power of the Phantom and keep your speed up. Except at the top of the "egg", don't let your speed drop below 350 KIAS and only do that when you have to. Also, the MiG-17 doesn't roll well at high speed - no power boost on the controls. 2. Use lag-pursuit...best described as putting yourself in a pursuit curve that leads your a/c to a deep six o'clock position on the bogey. Think of it like a cone or funnel that the bogey drags around behind him with the small end on his tailpipe. You want to be in the wide part of the funnel, usually between 3/4 mile and 1 mile astern. Remember, the Phantom's primary weapon in a dogfight is the AIM-9, not the gun. Gun kills are the best - believe me, I know - but the gun is really there for situations when you just get too close and can't back off to beyond the AIM-9's minimum range - or for when you are out of missiles and can't bug out! Also, Navy and Marine birds didn't always carry a gun pod, so it wasn't even an option sometimes. 3. If you start getting slow, try to pass the bogey as close to 180 degree out as you can, unload (push the nose over), stroke the burners and extend. And, ladies and gents, I'm talking extend to five or six miles separation. Get lots of knots, 550+, select boresight on the radar and the AIM-7E, pitch up and back into the fight, auto acquire that bad-boy and shoot him in the face with the Sparrow. You'll find this works pretty well. 4. Finally, if you are getting into a bad position, tell your wingman to head for home, unload, go for the deck and get the hell out of there. You can always live to fight another day. Using the above tactics (and a whole bunch of luck), I managed to get six of those ten MiG-21's I mentioned earlier, even though my wingman went down early in the fight, and then I flew home to land. Not a bad mission and, believe me, not at all representative of what a real dogfight against those odds would have been like. I truly doubt I could have made it home had that situation ever presented itself in 'Nam. Also, with my wingman down early, I would have taken the first opportunity to get the hell out of there. Four guys on the ground that need to be rescued is a lot worse than two! I dusted my WOV off this evening and tried the F-4B out in a dogfight with some MiG-21's. The basic handling is not representative at all, with directional control (yaw using rudders) for fine tuning a guns solution just about impossible. Pitch and roll seemed a bit slow to me as well and both those axes did not damp out occillations as they should. This is one of the reasons I changed the damper settings for all three axes in the F-4 data.ini. In the F-4's (all models I flew) as long as the stability augmentation was on and working (and it did most of the time), the Phantom was a pretty stable gun platform, especially at low to medium altitudes. In fact, we often turned roll stab aug off in dogfights so we could increase our roll rates and not experience any feedback (felt as mild, jerky push-back in the roll axis) from the augmentation. The F-4B in WOV is also over-powered. I never saw over 700 KTAS on the deck in any F-4, yet the F-4B in WOV will do 830...that's 1.15 Mach, way too fast. I then installed the MF F-4G in WOV. Although it seems to be a bit less "twitchy" than the F-4B, it too is very over-powered and doesn't bleed energy as an F-4E would. I'm assuming they didn't put souped up J-79s in the F-4G - if they did, that might account for some of the excess power. I didn't get a chance to fly the F-4G, so I'm guess here. At any rate, try it out on the deck in full burner...something like 768 KTAS. I'd believe 685 KTAS on the deck, maybe. I'm going to try some mods to the FM's for the Phantoms in WOV to see if I can get them to fly as I think they should. That won't mean they are correct, by the way; just that they'll sort of feel the way an old guy like me thinks they should. I certainly don't mind telling you a bit about the more mundane aspects of combat missions in the F-4. I'm not sure that the ThirdWire sims are able to simulate post takeoff rejoins and normal landing procedures (nor should they be, given that they are "lite" sims). Having said that, just for fun you can perform a normal rejoin following takeoff with this fairly common procedure. One good thing is that you are always the lead plane in TW sims. That will help make this a bit more possible. Generally, we used single-plane takeoff (i.e. each bird took off on its own) although it wasn't uncommon to use formation takeoffs where each section of two F-4s took off in formation. That was used, not to be cool (although it was fun), but to get more birds in the air quickly. Even on the ground, the Phantom ate lots of JP-4 (fuel) and sitting around waiting to takeoff was not good. When we had to launch 12 or 16 birds at once, formation takeoffs were sometimes the answer. One difference from reality in this sim is that the entire flight, generally up to four a/c, all took the runway together, even if we then took off separately. Interval between each bird releasing brakes depended on things like the weather, type of rejoin briefed, ordnance load, etc., but usually between 5 and 30 seconds. (It could be longer if the weather was really dogs__t and we needed to rejoin in IFR conditions using the radar.) Two types of rejoin were normally used, turning or straight ahead. For a turning rejoin, once lead was airborne and cleaned up he would start a turn (could be level or climbing, depending on the situation) using about 30 degrees bank angle and a constant speed. Speed for rejoin was always briefed and was usually 350 KIAS. Wingmen joined on the inside of the turn, coming up along the extended wing line of the leader's aircraft until aboard. Once the flight of two or four was together, lead would proceed on course or look for the other flights to join in a larger formation. Straight ahead rejoin was as you might expect, lead held a constant airspeed (again usually 350 KIAS) as he proceeded on course and the wingmen joined from straight astern. That's how the sim portrays rejoin, but the speed (if you use autopilot just to watch) is usually too high. Also, climbout was usually made simple by using around 360 KIAS to maybe 380 KIAS and taking whatever rate of climb that gave you. Of course, there were climb charts that you could use to make the most of your fuel, but that was not used in combat very often...just too much trouble to stay on the numbers. Your attention needed to be elsewhere and trimming the bird up to climb at 350 KIAS meant you didn't have to pay much attention to it. For VFR landings, as long a no one was shot up or really short on fuel, mostly we would fly in formation to the initial point (six or eight miles out from the approach end of the runway), in a tight, right echelon formation at 360-400 KIAS at 1,500' (USAF) or 1,000' (USN/USMC). Lead would take the flight down the runway and, at the mid-point, would perform a pattern break turn to the left, pop his boards as he pulled power to idle, holding altitude level, and roll out 180 degrees from the runway heading, i.e. parallel to the runway, about 1/2 mile abeam, drop gear and flaps, and start his turn to land. Each wingman followed at 4 second interval, duplicating what lead did. If done correctly, this is an excellent looking arrival and got all birds on the deck pretty quickly. Even when really tired from long flights or from a tough combat mission, pilots took a lot of pride in the way the formation looked coming into the field (or at the boat). The echelon formation had to be tight and steady (no bouncing around on the wing), the interval between a/c had to be the same (if #2 broke late, #3 and #4 used the same interval just to make it look good), and the turn had to be level. Many a wingman's backside was chewed for screwing up the "break". We had a saying, at least in the Marine Corps, about coming into the break, "Rather be dead than look bad." Obviously, for bad weather or a shot-up bird, the straight-in approach either VFR or IFR was preferred. When operating from a runway, we often used formation landings in IFR conditions in order to get the birds down before someone ran out of fuel. Obviously, you can't do that at the boat! Flying a formation landing to full-stop in 100' ceiling and 1/4 mile visibility was really sporty - but then so was coming aboard the boat at night in lousy weather and rough seas. For guys operating off the boat, sometimes the most difficult part of the mission was just getting aboard! Lots of balls in those boys! (And now in girls too, I should add, given that we have female fighter pilots in the USN!) I've rambled on...probably bored most folks silly. I hope this information was what you wanted but if not, ask again and add a bit more detail. Take care, Wags

When we were flying Linebacker II, the MiGs would try to jump the strike flights in hopes of making them jettison ordnance and keeping them from hitting their targets. If our MiGCAP didn't get to them and keep them busy, it sometimes worked. Several of the MiG kills the Triple Nickle racked up during Linebacker II were made getting them off the backs of the Phantoms carrying the bombs - often my squadron, the 335th. As a strike flight, you tried not to jettison unless you had to - but, if needed, you didn't hesitate to dump your load to save the aircraft (and your own butt!). As for fuel tanks, there was a brief period where they were in short supply and we were "encouraged" not to jettison "without good reason". That was typical guidance from 7th Air Force in Saigon; nobody jettisoned tanks without needing to anyway. I believe the MiGCAP flights usually jettisoned tanks before engaging. Cheers, Wags

Thanks, CoolHand29, I'll see if I can try the section takeoff (2 birds). We never did 4-plane formation takeoffs, just two sections of two taking off one after the other. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, Wags

Hi Dave, As requested, I posted my reply to Mike D. in the other forum. I'll try to visit that more often now that I know it exists. If I can be of help to the MF folks, I'm happy to try. Regards, Wags

Mike, I certainly don't mind telling you a bit about the more mundane aspects of combat missions in the F-4. I'm not sure that the ThirdWire sims are able to simulate post takeoff rejoins and normal landing procedures (nor should they be, given that they are "lite" sims). Having said that, just for fun you can perform a normal rejoin following takeoff with this fairly common procedure. One good thing is that you are always the lead plane in TW sims. That will help make this a bit more possible. Generally, we used single-plane takeoff (i.e. each bird took off on its own) although it wasn't uncommon to use formation takeoffs where each section of two F-4s took off in formation. That was used, not to be cool (although it was fun), but to get more birds in the air quickly. Even on the ground, the Phantom ate lots of JP-4 (fuel) and sitting around waiting to takeoff was not good. When we had to launch 12 or 16 birds at once, formation takeoffs were sometimes the answer. One difference from reality in this sim is that the entire flight, generally up to four a/c, all took the runway together, even if we then took off separately. Interval between each bird releasing brakes depended on things like the weather, type of rejoin briefed, ordnance load, etc., but usually between 5 and 30 seconds. (It could be longer if the weather was really dogs__t and we needed to rejoin in IFR conditions using the radar.) Two types of rejoin were normally used, turning or straight ahead. For a turning rejoin, once lead was airborne and cleaned up he would start a turn (could be level or climbing, depending on the situation) using about 30 degrees bank angle and a constant speed. Speed for rejoin was always briefed and was usually 350 KIAS. Wingmen joined on the inside of the turn, coming up along the extended wing line of the leader's aircraft until aboard. Once the flight of two or four was together, lead would proceed on course or look for the other flights to join in a larger formation. Straight ahead rejoin was as you might expect, lead held a constant airspeed (again usually 350 KIAS) as he proceeded on course and the wingmen joined from straight astern. That's how the sim portrays rejoin, but the speed (if you use autopilot just to watch) is usually too high. Also, climbout was usually made simple by using around 360 KIAS to maybe 380 KIAS and taking whatever rate of climb that gave you. Of course, there were climb charts that you could use to make the most of your fuel, but that was not used in combat very often...just too much trouble to stay on the numbers. Your attention needed to be elsewhere and trimming the bird up to climb at 350 KIAS meant you didn't have to pay much attention to it. For VFR landings, as long a no one was shot up or really short on fuel, mostly we would fly in formation to the initial point (six or eight miles out from the approach end of the runway), in a tight, right echelon formation at 360-400 KIAS at 1,500' (USAF) or 1,000' (USN/USMC). Lead would take the flight down the runway and, at the mid-point, would perform a pattern break turn to the left, pop his boards as he pulled power to idle, holding altitude level, and roll out 180 degrees from the runway heading, i.e. parallel to the runway, about 1/2 mile abeam, drop gear and flaps, and start his turn to land. Each wingman followed at 4 second interval, duplicating what lead did. If done correctly, this is an excellent looking arrival and got all birds on the deck pretty quickly. Even when really tired from long flights or from a tough combat mission, pilots took a lot of pride in the way the formation looked coming into the field (or at the boat). The echelon formation had to be tight and steady (no bouncing around on the wing), the interval between a/c had to be the same (if #2 broke late, #3 and #4 used the same interval just to make it look good), and the turn had to be level. Many a wingman's backside was chewed for screwing up the "break". We had a saying, at least in the Marine Corps, about coming into the break, "Rather be dead than look bad." Obviously, for bad weather or a shot-up bird, the straight-in approach either VFR or IFR was preferred. When operating from a runway, we often used formation landings in IFR conditions in order to get the birds down before someone ran out of fuel. Obviously, you can't do that at the boat! Flying a formation landing to full-stop in 100' ceiling and 1/4 mile visibility was really sporty - but then so was coming aboard the boat at night in lousy weather and rough seas. For guys operating off the boat, sometimes the most difficult part of the mission was just getting aboard! Lots of balls in those boys! (And now in girls too, I should add, given that we have female fighter pilots in the USN!) Well, Mike, again I've rambled on...probably bored most folks silly. I hope this information was what you wanted but if not, ask again and add a bit more detail. Take care, Wags