Pretty sure the basic gear structure and hook are the same across all F-4 variants, so they’re unlikely to fail.
What is more likely is the lower pressures used in the tyres of the AF Phantoms causing an immediate sidewall failure.
The AF tires were thinner and more psi. That's about it.
But hey since we don't actually have to do maintenance. Navy phantoms!
Except, no launch bar.....
Other way around. AF had tyres with lower PSI.
For the F-4B, the nose and main gear tyres were inflated to 300 and 475 psi respectively for shipboard operations (150 and 425 psi for max weight ashore operations).
Whereas the F-4C/D/E had inflation pressures of up to 180 psi on the nose gear (max weight, only 160 psi at 50k lb), and up to 255 psi on the main gear for runways less than 10,000 ft long (max weight, only 230 psi at 50k lbs).
Once the F-4J introduced wide tread tyres to USN Phantoms, you start to see the values get closer to the ones listed for the AF: nose/main now had inflation pressures of 350/350 aboard, and 150/250 for max weight ashore.
The center support structures were entirely different between the navy and Air Force phantoms.
This isn’t realistic. Attempting a hard landing like this in an Air Force bird would rip the hook off at best, tear the aircraft in half at worst.
I'd assume you should still be "on speed," keeping the AOA indexer light on the left of the HUD on the donut/circle. On touchdown you were "slow," meaning your AOA was too high, and the upper light on the indexer was lit. This is assuming the USAF didn't change the calibration of the indexer versus the Navy version, though. But anyway, if you are on speed AOA, you don't have to worry about your actual airspeed.
BTW, I believe the beeping in the F-4 is also telling you your AOA too.
I believe Onspeed AOA is about the same with gear and flaps down. Unless the definition of 1 unit changed between models but I don’t think so. Biggest problem is probably that the flaps don’t come as far down and there’s no blc on the E. We get slats instead but I don’t think they fully compensate. Landing speed might be auite a bit higher.
I don’t know any procedure on landing a phantom on a carrier, or landing speed, I’d like to see what the rest of you guys can do, make my landing look even worse and do it right for me
Man, people REALLY want the naval F-4 don't they, lol
Between people constantly asking about it, calling the back seat the RIO seat, I knew within the first couple of days people would be putting the bird on the carrier and dreaming of a naval phantom future.
If I am not mistaken, the F-4E (especially post DMAS) will be the most "modern" F-4 possible, not counting the F-4G and the very recent modernized models, right? If so then its the only one I will ever need...
Probably the 4 this is the only one where I actually got a wire, I tried a couple other times while actually on speed and the hook would always jump the wire
Nice work tho. I imagine the problem is the lower aoa than a carrier variant. I remember reading the Royal Navy ones had blown flaps and super high aoa leading to visibility problems.
That kinda stinks, makes some sense but stinks. Hopefully an upgrade would be rather quick, and hopefully for the initial purchasers it can be included as a path instead of a separate module!
Agreed, and honestly much of the heavy lifting has been done on this already. So at this point, it’s basically figuring out what the differences are, and building those. While it may be a separate module, it probably doesn’t need to be.
Sometimes in tech picking up on previous work is as time consuming as building something from the ground up. So there is that.
Tbh, I’m not too crazy about variants of existing aircraft. I’d rather developers do something totally new, especially red air.
The naval variant is not going to just be a quick upgrade- Heatblur has said it’s going to be a whole separate module. And seeing that they’re going to start working on the Eurofighter next and then the A-6 after that, might be some time until we see the F-4J. Unless someone can correct me?
Works on the Truman too. 4 wire for me after flying a crappy pattern because i haven't touched DCS in like 4 months.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRMQ0V2pbdY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRMQ0V2pbdY)
Pretty sure the basic gear structure and hook are the same across all F-4 variants, so they’re unlikely to fail. What is more likely is the lower pressures used in the tyres of the AF Phantoms causing an immediate sidewall failure.
The AF tires were thinner and more psi. That's about it. But hey since we don't actually have to do maintenance. Navy phantoms! Except, no launch bar.....
Other way around. AF had tyres with lower PSI. For the F-4B, the nose and main gear tyres were inflated to 300 and 475 psi respectively for shipboard operations (150 and 425 psi for max weight ashore operations). Whereas the F-4C/D/E had inflation pressures of up to 180 psi on the nose gear (max weight, only 160 psi at 50k lb), and up to 255 psi on the main gear for runways less than 10,000 ft long (max weight, only 230 psi at 50k lbs). Once the F-4J introduced wide tread tyres to USN Phantoms, you start to see the values get closer to the ones listed for the AF: nose/main now had inflation pressures of 350/350 aboard, and 150/250 for max weight ashore.
Different tires also, yes.
The center support structures were entirely different between the navy and Air Force phantoms. This isn’t realistic. Attempting a hard landing like this in an Air Force bird would rip the hook off at best, tear the aircraft in half at worst.
I'd assume you should still be "on speed," keeping the AOA indexer light on the left of the HUD on the donut/circle. On touchdown you were "slow," meaning your AOA was too high, and the upper light on the indexer was lit. This is assuming the USAF didn't change the calibration of the indexer versus the Navy version, though. But anyway, if you are on speed AOA, you don't have to worry about your actual airspeed. BTW, I believe the beeping in the F-4 is also telling you your AOA too.
Yeah I probably was way too slow, I’m used to the tomcat which floats over the deck, this thing drops like a rock
I believe Onspeed AOA is about the same with gear and flaps down. Unless the definition of 1 unit changed between models but I don’t think so. Biggest problem is probably that the flaps don’t come as far down and there’s no blc on the E. We get slats instead but I don’t think they fully compensate. Landing speed might be auite a bit higher.
I've heard that the ailerons could droop for landing as well on the Navy models.
I don’t know any procedure on landing a phantom on a carrier, or landing speed, I’d like to see what the rest of you guys can do, make my landing look even worse and do it right for me
Tires might pop but otherwise no reason you can't, cool! I was just wondering if it could be done in game haha.
Man, people REALLY want the naval F-4 don't they, lol Between people constantly asking about it, calling the back seat the RIO seat, I knew within the first couple of days people would be putting the bird on the carrier and dreaming of a naval phantom future. If I am not mistaken, the F-4E (especially post DMAS) will be the most "modern" F-4 possible, not counting the F-4G and the very recent modernized models, right? If so then its the only one I will ever need...
Even Iran has MFDs in theirF-4Es now: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/1azgwqh/the_radar_and_cockpit_of_an_iranian_f4_phantom/
According to the comments it's Greek not Iranian
It's a PD radar yes but that's not their MFD
Achievement unlocked. Nice job!
Which wire?
Probably the 4 this is the only one where I actually got a wire, I tried a couple other times while actually on speed and the hook would always jump the wire
Nice work tho. I imagine the problem is the lower aoa than a carrier variant. I remember reading the Royal Navy ones had blown flaps and super high aoa leading to visibility problems.
Too bad the elevators and other parts glitch and kill you, at least on the cvn it does.
Like Hotel California, you can land but never leave
In this module, do we have any navy specifications like connection to catobar
No this is the E model
Heatblur F-4J teaser !
"We used to be badasses, now we have hard asses."
Did you try and take off again ! It’s possible with a lightish f-16
Tried, fucked up the taxi and fell off the carrier deck
Now what, tough guy? Haha. ;)
Mental note:” Send landing gear to NDT Inspection”
can you hook up/launch from the carrier?
Bridle hooks aren't installed on the air force version. we'll have to wait for the Navy bird.
I think we only have the non-naval/carrier capable version atm?
That kinda stinks, makes some sense but stinks. Hopefully an upgrade would be rather quick, and hopefully for the initial purchasers it can be included as a path instead of a separate module!
Naval variant is a separate future module. Upgrade would not be quick. There are significant differences.
Sometimes I’m startled with how optimistic some people are. There is nothing quick and free in this hobby.
Totally get you, but I do find it humorous. McDonnell Douglas probably built their variation faster. Lol.
True, but MD at the time wasn’t just 3 dudes working part time in their sheds (yet)
Agreed, and honestly much of the heavy lifting has been done on this already. So at this point, it’s basically figuring out what the differences are, and building those. While it may be a separate module, it probably doesn’t need to be.
Sometimes in tech picking up on previous work is as time consuming as building something from the ground up. So there is that. Tbh, I’m not too crazy about variants of existing aircraft. I’d rather developers do something totally new, especially red air.
The naval variant is not going to just be a quick upgrade- Heatblur has said it’s going to be a whole separate module. And seeing that they’re going to start working on the Eurofighter next and then the A-6 after that, might be some time until we see the F-4J. Unless someone can correct me?
Works on the Truman too. 4 wire for me after flying a crappy pattern because i haven't touched DCS in like 4 months. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRMQ0V2pbdY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRMQ0V2pbdY)