BlackLion213

Yes, but if you jettison your drop tanks your squadron will soon run out of tanks. :) You can still reach Mach 1.8ish at 30,000’ even with drop tanks and pallets, so they don’t have a huge performance impact on their own. The operational need favors keeping them for future use instead of dropping them. -Nick

No, that’s not a good idea. I just tried that against a F-15C in PvP and it failed. Fighting in the horizontal was much better. Hitting the merge at 22K’ at Mach 0.95 and performing an optimal inclines turn (AOB 40ish degrees) gave much better initial nose position. After that it is just energy management and not getting greedy with at the expense of AOA and energy. I also flew a F-15C today against the F-14B and made the mistake of keeping it horizontal. Got gunned on the deck out of energy. The embarrassing part is that the F-15C started at 70% fuel, but the Tomcat started at 100% - the Tomcat still ran me out of energy. I should have stayed high. However, the real answer is that who ever was the better pilot won - no matter the airframe. Today we flew the F-14B against the F-15C and F/A-18C for about 15 engagements and the better pilot won every time irrespective of airframe. Tactics and skill were more important than airframe - which real pilots know very well. DCS players keep hoping that a new airplane will solve their limitations by being so much better than everything else, but this is simply not going to happen. You better practice instead of posting nonsense and hoping for the best. :P -Nick

Of course you are not impressed. You made your decision long ago based on limited information and are simply reinforcing your bias. Not that watching another player is an objective measure anyway. It’s fine to have an unfounded opinion, but why bother sharing? :) -Nick

No need to do that. The Tomcat can take on anything in DCS from a BFM standpoint. It is not the easiest aircraft to fly in BFM, but it’s capabilities keep it competitive for those who get to know her. Here is a quick benchmark for a clean F-14B and it was the standard air show demo for minimum radius turns at roughly 2000’ MSL and less than 50000 lbs gross weight: plug in burner at 280 kias and accelerate to 320 kias, build up the G and the F-14B can sustain 7 G at a steady 320 kias. The Heatblur module is very carefully benchmarked against the real EM charts and does this maneuver perfectly. For reference, the Hornet clean with 4000 lbs of gas can only sustain about 5.8 G at the same altitude and speed. So if you are going to fight the Tomcat with a Hornet, make sure you stay above 350 kias. -Nick

Perfectly said Wizard! :) -Nick

You mean because the defense secretary owned stock in McDonald Douglas? Yes, a challenging barrier to overcome. Given that the F/A-18C had the exact same service life as the F-14 it is clear that USN aircraft need ongoing production. USAF can keep aircraft much longer with their long runways and kinder conditions. -Nick

I think Victory205’s point is that no pilot will risk their life, their RIO’s life, the aircraft, or their career by attempting to pull the stick into their lap at Mach 1.2+. It is simply a waste of everything involved. Also, stick forces as the G’s built up would reach 100-200 lbs. Not an easy pull for someone and there is at least some risk of the control stick failing/breaking. Which has been reported once in the Tomcat while attempting to over power a malfunctioning pitch SAS. So not at all an accurate representation of real life possibilities, but the lift and energy of the jet would allow a transient like that. Who knows about the rest. -Nick

Yes, TWS works now and will be working during EA. -Nick

So there are 4 specific differences between the Heatblur F-14A and F-14B: 1. Engines (TF30 vs F110) 2. RWR - ALR-45 in the F-14A vs ALR-67 in the F-14B 3. Gun gas purging vents: Pre AFC731 on the F-14A and post AFC731 on the F-14B 4. DLC: "old" 4 spoiler DLC on the F-14A vs "new" 2 spoiler DLC on the F-14B - the new DLC was more effective and easier to use. The combined effect of these changes will have a real impact on general flight, operations, and landing on the boat. :) -Nick

The different videos are approaching handling in different ways. Ralfi and Jabbers are comparing more directly to other modern DCS offerings and were rather surprised that their standard techniques for ACM were not working well in the F-14. The onset of roll reversal requires the virtual pilot to stop using lateral stick for roll, but the pilot also has to monitor where they are in the AOA range to know when to make this transition along with managing overall performance. Magz was approaching handling from a more general perspective and much of what he was comparing to are WWII warbirds in terms of stability. :) Compared to a platform like that, the F-14 is very stable and will not drop a wing or develop any sudden uncommanded movements as you push to very high AOA. Once AOA goes above 20 or so, any sideslip may result in wing rock (not easy to track a target with wing rock), but the aircraft won't slice or roll off in this regimen. As AOA increases above 25-30 units, there is a tendency to roll off that may need rudder inputs for correction (not lateral stick!), but you can push the F-14 to very high AOA despite no FBW with excellent controllability. This was one of the major breakthroughs for the F-14 versus older platforms when it first arrived, it allowed pilots to really push AOA to very high levels while still maintaining controllability and not departing. Part of this was related to the wing rock - the wing rock stabilizes the aircraft as it moves into negative yaw stability at high AOA due to adverse yaw with roll. As sideslip develops dihedral effect of the airframe induces roll, but because that initial roll causes the nose to yaw away from the direction of roll it pushes the nose back to center. Where the F-14 starts to develop wing rock, the Phantom was prone to departure (roll off for the slatted F-4s and yaw off for the unslatted). So with pure pitch inputs, its hard to get into trouble with the F-14 (like nearly all the jets in DCS). However, you can get into trouble with poorly chosen inputs (like Ralfi and Jabbers described/demonstrated). So if you give lateral stick above 20 units, you get roll opposite stick along with sideslip and the potential to develop yaw rate. If you hold that lateral stick past about 90-120 degrees of roll the yaw rate becomes pretty visible and could lead to a real departure. Similarly, you use rudder for rolling at ~17+ units AOA, but the roll SAS will cross-control your rudder inputs since it only monitors stick inputs for whether roll is "commanded". If you rudder roll with roll SAS on, most the time it is fine, but every so often it will cross control and create a significant yaw moment. And at high AOA, you do did not monitor for excessive yaw rates in general, but things tend not to come out of no where. So the F-14 is very hands on imho, but most of the dangerous things are due to bad pilot inputs not the aircraft deciding to take a swing at you. :) -Nick

Both the window and the background (IAS in knots) move so that it displays your current airspeed. Even in VR it is very readable and easy to interpret once you see it in action. -Nick

Well I won't insult you, but it is awefully hard to respect you when you write things like this ^^. I do have to question your information though. If you can't defend your stance then that says a lot about what it is built upon. :) All the 4th generation US fighters are very dangerous opponents. It would not surprise me if the MiG-23MLD was also very capable at WVR and I haven't seen any performance data on it. Have you? It would be interesting to have some numbers to corroborate your claims. My primary objection is that, frankly, no aircraft currently exists that can undertake a WVR fight against a 4th generation fighter without a moderate risk of losing. Air to air encounters are highly variable and are not neutral fights outside of training. So while one aircraft or another may have the upper hand, they have no assurance of victory. But here is some data to help demonstrate what I mean. At 55,600 lbs gross weight (4 AIM-9s and 4 AIM-7s) the F-14B can sustain a 16.3 deg rate of turn at 5000' with an max instantaneous turn rate of 23 deg. The F-14A's sustained rate is slightly less at 15.5 deg while instantaneous is the same. For reference, the F-16A (with 2 AIM-9s and 3000 lbs of fuel) is 18 deg sustained at mach 0.8 (vs 0.6 for the F-14) and the same max instantaneous rate of 23 deg. Also, here is a comparison of the F-14 vs the F-16C and F-15C (note the F-16C is heavier and gives up some performance to the super light F-16A): Do you have any data to support your claim? To "easily" defeat the F-14 or F-15 it probably needs at least 3-4 deg more per second of sustained turn rate (so about 20 deg sustained at 5000'). That would be a pretty impressive turn rate! -Nick

Ralfi forgot to hit the master reset after coming out of oversweep. This inhibited the CADC from controlling wing sweep. -Nick

Seems doubtful that it will serve much longer than the Tomcat. The legacy hornet (F/A-18A-D) had the same service life in the USN as the F-14 - 32 years. My guess is that the F/A-18E-G will have roughly the same service life unless new airframes start production. But most of the talk is about upgrades not new production. Seems that high performance fighters have a reasonably fixed service life given the rigors of carrier aviation. -Nick

The KA-6D was phased out because they were the highest hour airframes and the aircraft was being retired as they wore out. So for the last few years of A-6 service they applied centerline buddy stores to to A-6Es which meant carrying a bit less gas between the higher empty weight of the A-6E and the lower center tank capacity due to fitting the hose and reel into the tank itself (vs fuselage for the KA-6D). Certainly the KA-6D was far more valuable than the space it consumed. Tankers are essential aircraft for combat operations and the KA-6D could give away far more gas than the S-3B. So most airwings had to task about twice as many tanker assets per cycle compared to before the KA-6D's retirement. The KA-6D could launch with 26,000 lbs of fuel and give away 16,000-18,000 lbs depending on the cycle length. This is twice as much giveaway as the S-3B! The KA-6D was phased out in the early 90s, perhaps a deployment or two before the A-6E depending on the squadron. The A-6Bs were either converted to A-6Es or retired in the late 70s since the A-6E was given the same SEAD capability. I agree, Angles of Attack is a good book. :) -Nick

Yes, it turns out that the F-14 had a very "talkative" airframe. Our former Tomcat pilots felt very strongly that buffet needed to be properly modeled since it was an essential Tomcat feedback cue that allowed pilots to target optimal AOA and recognize where they were within the envelope. As one of our pilots said: "above 24 units AOA the buffet would knock you fillings out". There is also some light buffet with the landing flaps down and when approaching the transonic region. As a rule during turns, light buffet equals around 15 units AOA and represents ideal AOA for sustained turn rate. Moderate buffet onsets from 17-22 units and represents instantaneous turn rate, while heavy buffet means that pitch rate markedly slows and you are just throwing away energy. Also, light buffet means coordinated stick and rudder inputs (the Tomcat really prefers coordinating in normal flight - you use the rudders all the time in the Tomcat). Moderate to heavy buffet requires the stick centered and roll control with the rudders only (or opposite stick, but coordinated stick and rudder above 18-20 units cross controls the airframe). This is one of the details of the Tomcat that will take users some time to adapt to - not using lateral controls at high AOA, but the airframe is very controllable up to really high AOA using the right techniques. And with the awesome buffet cues....you'll know where you are at all times. :) -Nick

I want to start off by congratulating AvioDev on getting the EFM implemented. For me, the EFM is very well done and the C101EB (only version I've tried so far) is a lot of fun to fly. The behaviors seem great too, the airframe is well damped but all feels dynamic. The EFM is really enjoyable to fly and also seems very plausible. Bravo! I bought the C101EB back in June 2015 and have been looking forward to flying the EFM since then. I'm happy to say that your team delivered and the C101EB is my favorite trainer and one of my favorite modules at the moment. Especially as a trainer, the western cockpit is much more familiar for me and its fun trying out things like ADF navigation on a western platform. As for the performance, I am seeing a 30 knot top speed to the L-39C which seems like it would be similar performance wise (355 KIAS vs 385 KIAS at 2500' MSL). The C101EB appears to have plenty of low speed performance for go arounds and initial climb out. The difference in performance is most evident above 250 KIAS or so. The C101EB does appear to have a larger frontal cross-section and thicker wings (not to mention both heavier with a lower thrust engine), so differences in acceleration is to be expected. It feels like some of the natural ram effects that increase jet engine thrust with speed (or the balance between ram effect and ram drag) might be the culprit. But it can be hard to tell performance from plain wikipedia figures. One would need to performance charts to map it all out. For me, these performance differences don't effect my enjoyment of the module though. Thanks again to AvioDev for getting this excellent EFM implemented and I hope you guys press forward with the Mirage F.1 - I love that airplane and I feel confident that it would be a well done module. -Nick

Incorrect. On the contrary, I expect a lot of eagle drivers to transform into the even more patriotic "bald eagle drivers" based on their own hair pulling. Of course, it will be about more than just the AIM-54.... -Nick

Irrespective of the math presented (not sure I agree with it, but I'm not a PhD in physics like some of our coders); I'll give you the practical perspective from using the new AIM-54. Truth be told, the Heatblur AIM-54 is less capable than the real missile. While it performs very close to benchmarks, it has an artificially low G-limiter to improve loft performance. This is spelled out in the Phoenix "white paper" that Cobra posted a while back. In spite of this modest handicap, the AIM-54 is perhaps the most effective anti-fighter missiles in DCS. Inside of 10 nm, it will hit PvP players about 90% of the time during testing (when the targeted player actually knows exactly where the Tomcat is and is trying to evade). One of our testers is a highly experienced 104th player and is yet to find an effective or consistent counter for it. He still ascribes most misses to luck. Here is a general breakdown of what you can expect when employing it against fighters: Against fighter AI (MiG-29s and Su-27s), you can expect that launches around 30 nm distance will destroy the opponent about 75% of the time. You can expect similar against player opponents with less than optimal SA or not much experience. Against those aware of the missile and familiar with tactics, kill rates probably drop to about 25%. At 15 nm, expect that about 50% of proficient players will be able to evade if aware. At 10 nm, evading is quite difficult and the vast majority of missiles will score hits against even experienced players with good SA. Between the rocket's power and warhead, it is simply deadly! So the idea of shooting down a reasonably aware player at 60 nm is fiction imho. But you can reliably hit fighter targets by 30 nm and the odds steadily rise as the distance closes. Also, there is a very handy ACM mode for the missile. Once selected, the missile can simply be boresighted against targets at closer than 10 nm and the missile comes off the rail within a second of pressing the trigger (vs 3 seconds for a conventional launch). You don't need a radar lock, just pull the trigger and it finds the target quite reliably. The motor will also still be burning when it finds its target, so it has plenty of energy to chase and torment. So the AIM-54 will bring a lot of value to the fight and complement the Tomcat's outstanding overall capabilities. Make no mistake, the F-14 is simply a A-A killer that can stand up to anything in DCS at either BVR or WVR. You'll see soon..... -Nick

The Heatblur F-14B is essentially 1988-1996 or 1997, basically from "as built" to the addition of LANTIRN. It is not a "F-14B Upgrade" that had the additional data bus, nor does it have DFCS. Both the F-14A and F-14B will have the same control system (AFCS) save for the later version of DLC on the F-14B, while the F-14A has the "old" DLC. The F-14A is 1987-1991 since it has the changes to the gunsight software incorporated around 1987, along with TCS and TF30-P-414A engines. I hope this helps to clear things up. -Nick

Landing mode. -Nick

:megalol: Visualization subject to size. -Nick

The refresh rate for all modes is 60 hz iirc, so plenty fast. The problem isn't "refresh rate" it is resolution of pitch changes. The combat and cruise modes use a 4:1 compression for the pitch ladder, so the apparent resolution is 4x finer. This makes the pitch ladder look quite smooth and it only really looks coarse in landing or A/G mode. However.....thats not the ergonomically difficult aspect of the HUD - its the layout. In the F-14 HUD, the airplane symbol and pitch ladder are depressed 5 degrees from the aircraft datum line. That is why the horizon line did not match up with the horizon as the OP asked. Here is a real world example and represents the pilot's view in terms of the relationship between the HUD and horizon(in landing mode for the video): We aren't quite sure why this decision was made by the F-14 engineers, but suspect it has to do with the lack of a combiner glass (which was part of the original F-14 mock-up, but later removed). Because the HUD projects onto the windscreen, there was only so much space for the symbology of the projection. The aircraft's axis of flight is high in the windscreen, so it seems that between the heading tape, aircraft symbol, TVV, and pitch ladder - the upper HUD would be really crowded. So they decided to depress the aircraft symbol and associated pitch ladder 5 degrees to space everything out. This means that the "horizon line" will lie below the horizon most of the time, but if you roll to 90 deg AOB it lines up and if you roll inverted it will be 5 deg above the horizon. In cruise mode and cruise AOA, the horizon line (in 4:1 compression mode) is generally close to or slightly above the horizon in level flight. But to "level" the aircraft, you need to line up the aircraft symbol with the horizon pitch line and not the horizon itself - since they are different. This reinforces what our SMEs say about the F-14A/B HUD - it is not a primary flight instrument, but meant as a tool for weapons employment. It takes a moment to get used to, but adds to the F-14 charm imho - you use the HUD differently in the F-14 than other fighters. -Nick

Yes, you can launch off the boat in mil-power. The HB F-14 has a different process in-sim for launching than the F/A-18. Instead of hooking into the cat and selecting burner like the Hornet (iirc - been a while), you connect to the cat and use a "salute" key function (my idea actually :)). So you go to mil-power and press shift-U. This causes the pilot figure in the F-14 to salute and the cat fires 2-2.5 seconds later. -Nick

Its a shame that he is not well-informed. :) But I can see how that would happen, he was bomber pilot. Under 450 KIAS the Tomcat can comfortably out pitch the F-16 and it only gets worse as airspeed declines. The F-16C and F-14B in fact have the same STR at 10K-15K'. And our former F-14A pilot does not seem to be worried about F-16s. :thumbup: -Nick