Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[M0SCA]

E/D/J/B is the plan

¨
What about C?

[dinosaurJR]

Regarding the F-4 FM, I think she is more or less spot on.

You really need to re think the way in which you fly this her as her characteristics are quite frankly as different from the usual IL-2 aircraft as is possible. It really is a case of almost learning to fly all over again.

Yes, the controls lock up, but then again this is more or less accurate. If you attempt to make a tight turn at high speed, the F-4 will fight you. Hell, if you are not careful you will pull a wing off very easily.

You cannot dogfight in the way that you could in a Wildcat, Corsair or even a Sabre. You need to plan ahead much more. The extreme speed of the F-4 requires that you know (or can estimate) the relative speed and heading of your opponent (difficult using the Mk1 Eyeball only, granted - just wait for working RADAR ) and then anticipate where he will be in 5 seconds or so...

You then need to smoothly guide your aircraft onto an intercept heading (yanking and banking in the F-4 does NOT produce the desired result) while remembering to give yourself enough range between you and your target so that you can either a) achieve missile lock or b) maneuver appropriately to bring your guns to bear on him. careful co ordination of the rudder ailerons and elevator are needed. Again, you cannot yank and bank. Just as has been said earlier in the thread; don't even try to turn and burn - use your massive speed and climb advantage. You are not flying an A6M.

You will use the vertical much more often in the F-4 than you ever did in any other fighter in order to reduce your turning circle. But this is good as the F-4 usually has a shit load of airspeed to trade for altitude.

Lastly, the AiM 7 is a joy to use, so long as you take your time and get a good lock (just keep the target in your reticule for a couple of seconds longer than you think you'll need). I also personally have the habit of launching the Sparrow in pairs - so if one goes rouge the other generally hits.

As for the low speed handling - she's fairly stable and lands on rails once she settles into the glide path. Even carrier landings are not out of the question.

Gerax is correct too; a lot of the QMB missions that exist don't have the capacity as they are now to handle the F-4; she is just too fast for the AI to handle.


That said; I think I have fallen in love with IL-2 all over again...

[SAS~Anto]

do you have G-force setting enable? If yes, please disable it, that setting is eff-up for most planes   ???

It doesn't screw up, just for these high-speed jets, you need to use higher limits in the flight model than real life (as modelling of, well everything, falls off in the Il-2 engine as you go past Mach 0.. Look at the F-86 flight models. We have tuned it so at tran-sonic speeds and droptanks, you can bend the wings (which matches real life reports). Once 'bent' becomes easier to rip wings off (though this is an unheard of event in RL as pilots trained to stay within limits).

For example, this is what we use in the MiG-21 and seems to work well

Code: [Select]

  G_class_coeff 20.0
  G_class 14.0


[S3231541]

I see, will have a look at it. Thanks Anto.

[Far77]

S-3, I was not complaining. I am saying was it supposed to be hard to maneuver, that is it. Also will you be developing the F-4 naval versions, or will you be keeping the E/D as Air Force and Navy?

F-4e turning was worse than of Mig-17, but a little bit better (at least at low altitudes) than of Mig-21bis (see some data I gave: @edit: Dead link removed )

So don't turn with Mig-17, but you could outturn Mig-21bis (when it appears...).

[mojojojo]

E/D/J/B is the plan

¨
What about C?

rawners is making that

[Pitbull]

 Navy's B version in USAF have codname C

[4S_Vega]

S-3 is right. the phantom is quite difficult to master, but its a killer once you get the hang of it. don't try to maneuver with MiGs. use your speed and rate of climb to your advantage.

exactly

F4's climb rate and acceleration where competitive at least until the 80/90

considered that his immediate successor in 'USN, ie Tomcat, wasn't superior in terms of performance as well, it was slightly faster at high altitude but the phantom still won as a climb speed

[mojojojo]

considered that his immediate successor in 'USN, ie Tomcat, wasn't superior in terms of performance as well, it was slightly faster at high altitude but the phantom still won as a climb speed

yes the tomcat officially replaced it, but in practice, the F/A-18 is really the plane that replaced it.

[SAS~Anto]

What about C?

rawners is making that

Nope he's not. Once this project was released, we cancelled all plans for our F-4C/D. Ours was little more than a VERY early alpha. As it is, the F-4C is a very similar aircraft to the F-4D and in fact, many were upgraded to its standard.

Navy's B version in USAF have codname C

Not really. The F-4C was a USAF, purpose-built variant that had numerous changes include different undercarriage, engines, radar and completely different rear cockpit layout (which featured a second set of controls).

[poudjik]

I thought I should mention a visual bug which hasn't been mentioned before, in order to help out in improving the F4.

I tried a night mission the other day, pitch black night, in external view it's the darkest possible, you can't see anything. However, when I am in the F4's cockpit view, I can see pretty well what's all around outside, as if the canopy were night goggles. That sorta put me off in playing night missions, as it's a bit cheating night darkness.

[coenoo1]

not historically and filmwise correct, but it does give me a nice feeling flying with these songs: and