Jump to content

F-14A 1975 vs 1989


Southernbear

Recommended Posts

It has now come to my attention that the F-14A we are getting will be a later version than what I expected so my question is simple:

 

Aside from Bombs and LANTIRN for the US version and probably Drop tanks

 

What are the differences between the F-14A from say 1975-77 and the updated F-14A post 1989?

 

I thought the A is getting an older RWR then the B and the current F-14B EIG panel is apparently from the F-14A in the first place (B is meant to be digital) so what upgrades does the one we are getting have over the very first F-14As to be put into production?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said that we're not getting an older RWR?

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said that we're not getting an older RWR?

 

Not to say it isn't but rather is it the same RWR as a really early F-14A or did it go through more upgrades before the one we are getting?

 

i.e, its an older RWR then the F-14B but is it still and upgraded version compared to an early production 1975-77 F-14A?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to say it isn't but rather is it the same RWR as a really early F-14A or did it go through more upgrades before the one we are getting?

 

i.e, its an older RWR then the F-14B but is it still and upgraded version compared to an early production 1975-77 F-14A?

 

IIRC, the first 39 F-14A's or so came with AN/APR-25, the later ones had AN/ALR-45 which soldiered on till early 90's and upgrade to AN/ALR-67.

 

I would also presume there were sub-variants and slight upgrades of the AN/ALR-45 over time, but I'm not sure if the F-14's got them.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC The F-14A from 1975 had the IRST, Beavertail with the dielectric panels, 7 hole gun vent, no pitot on the nose. TBH I hope at some point we get an early USN F-14A. Its the classic Tomcat and those high vis schemes would look pretty cool.

Yeah, much earlier version would be cooler than upcoming A which is pretty close to current B model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-14A-70-GR and -75-GR as introduced in 1972 had different gun gas vents, different rear fuselage structure, no tail stiffeners, and IRST that didn't work very well, and the notoriously finicky TF30-P412. These variants only ever served with VF-1, VF-2, VF-14, VF-32, and training squadron VF-124 in those early years before eventually being assigned to reserve units. The later -80GR is the structurally mature variant that every other 70's Tomcat squadron converted to.

 

In terms of capability, the F-14A between 1975 and 1989 really only got TARPS, TCS, and some ECM upgrades. The LANTIRN wasn't introduced to the F-14 community until 1995. Structurally, stiffeners were installed on the tails and the fuselage was reworked to mediate fatigue cracking that also plagued the early F-14s. The F-14A never lost capability, so the Heatblur F-14A will be able to perform in the strike role but not lose its edge in air-to-air. Disable the TCS and load the right weapons, what you'll have won't be any different from an F-14 in 1977.


Edited by Swordsman422

DCSF-14AOK3A.jpg

DCSF14AOK3B.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking what changed from back in the 1970s to the 1990s is a lot. Swordsman422 summed it up well for what you should care about, but with the sticklers for accuracy who play DCS, understand that the changes during the 1970s were coming incredibly quickly. Just looking at a non-exhaustive list of the changes a player would find noticeable in the cockpit and external model from the first production block to the end of the ACEVAL/AIMVAL trials (1978 ):

 

Block 60 (FY71): Original production block; aircraft gross weight 37,781lbs.

Block 65 (FY71): Introduced TF-30P-412A turbofan, window defog (pilot cockpit).

Block 70 (FY72): Changed Master Caution Advisory Panel (pilot cockpit), changed tone volume control panel. Changed air start button to air start switch (pilot cockpit). Changed Detail Data Display layout; more dials and adjusted switch positions (RIO cockpit).

Block 75 (FY72-73): Changed Master Caution Advisory Panel (pilot cockpit) – again.

Block 80 (FY73): Modified airbrake and boat tail, moved position light from boat tail to tip of port vertical fin. (Certain sources say this is Block 75, but photographic evidence shows to the contrary).

Block 85 (FY74): Replaced AN/ARC-51/A UHF with AN/ARC-159. AFC 561: Installation of ALR-45/50 and ALE-39 ECM suite. Changed ECM panels 32, 36, and 38 in RIO cockpit. Aircraft gross weight 38,188lbs.

Block 90 (FY75): CADC-controlled (“automatic”) maneuver flaps and slats. Addition of AoA probe on the nose. AFC 338: Dual UHF installed, radio panels changed (pilot and RIO cockpit). AFC 365: Integrated Trip advisory light added to MCAP.

Block 95 (FY76): AFC 410: Wing Sweep Emergency Handle Interlocks. Active AFCS, ACLS, PCD and Vector Modes: Mach position deleted from AFCS control panel.

Block 100 (FY77): Aircraft gross weight: 39,037lbs. Added “Sidewinder Cannot be Jettisoned” decal to LAU-7. Modified aircraft's multi-purpose pylon. Changed pilot’s Airspeed Mach Indicator to the same as the RIO’s (pilot cockpit).

 

So, depending on the year and airframe change, you'd have multiple cockpits to model with different panels and functionality in the span of the first three years. The 1980s saw some more significant changes. The "L STALL" and "R STALL" warning lights on either side of the center windscreen were an addition in 1982. They aren't on IRIAF F-14s. Nor is the Sidewinder seekerhead position on the HUD. That was added in 1985. TARPS, further changes to the ECM suite, corresponding cockpit panel replacements, etc. The jet continued to gain weight until 1984, from whence it is always listed as 42,000lbs (in 1981 it was 41,587). Suffice to say, a LOT changed from the 1970s to the 1990s!


Edited by Quid
Removed the sunglasses emote.

Rig: i9 10900KF @5.3GHz | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 3600MHz | ASUS ROG STRIX RTX 3090 24GB OC | ASUS Maximus XII Formula | 2x 2TB Intel SSD6 NVMe M.2 | VKB F-14CG on Gunfighter III Base | TM Warthog HOTAS | TM Rudder Pedals | HP Reverb G2

Hangar: FC3 | F-86F | F-4E [Pre-Ordered] | F-5E | F-14A/B | F-15E | F-16C | F/A-18C | Mirage 2000C | JF-17 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19P | MiG-21bis | AJS-37 | AV-8B | L39 | C-101 | A-10C/CII | Yak-52 | P-51D | P-47D | Fw 190 A-8/D-9 | Bf 109 | Spitfire | I-16 | UH-1 Huey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A2A only AFAIK, and so worthless they removed it/faired it over/replaced it with TCS as fast as they could.

 

Just took up weight and space

 

That's correct. A lot of folks assume that the early IRST was the same system that was on the F-14D chinpod and it's not. The IRST from the F-14D was actually a useful system, whereas the F-14A IRST was pretty poor.

DCSF-14AOK3A.jpg

DCSF14AOK3B.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if memory servers (it's been ages since i read this the last time), engines were detuned, air-bleed reconfigured and engines reinforced to reduce damage to the plane in case of.... ahem.... "spontaneous self-combustion".....

 

So probably a bit more thrust on the early birds (like pre 1978 ), and greater chances for compressor stalls.

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, Did -A Cats always need Zone 5 A/B when taking off from carriers? I was watching a F-14 Documentary recently which had footage from VF-1 and Vf-2s first cruise and some of the -A Tomcats in that footage didn't appear to be using afterburner as there were no bright exhausts. What could be the reason for this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if memory servers (it's been ages since i read this the last time), engines were detuned, air-bleed reconfigured and engines reinforced to reduce damage to the plane in case of.... ahem.... "spontaneous self-combustion".....

 

So probably a bit more thrust on the early birds (like pre 1978 ), and greater chances for compressor stalls.

 

 

I've heard this and I can find no source other than people saying "I heard they were de-tuned." Here's the thing: the Preliminary Technical Order from June 1972 indicates an installed thrust of the TF-30P-412 (0 altitude, 0 airspeed) as 10,500lbs at military power and 17,000 pounds in max afterburner. Later NATOPS manuals refined the numbers for the -414/414A; the 1981, 1984, 1995 and 2004 manuals all show 10,875lbs military and 17,077lbs in max afterburner installed thrust (again at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed). That tells me the engine wasn't de-tuned. The aircraft did get heavier, though, so the thrust-to-weight ratio got worse on account of the jet itself, not the motors.


Edited by Quid
Grammar

Rig: i9 10900KF @5.3GHz | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 3600MHz | ASUS ROG STRIX RTX 3090 24GB OC | ASUS Maximus XII Formula | 2x 2TB Intel SSD6 NVMe M.2 | VKB F-14CG on Gunfighter III Base | TM Warthog HOTAS | TM Rudder Pedals | HP Reverb G2

Hangar: FC3 | F-86F | F-4E [Pre-Ordered] | F-5E | F-14A/B | F-15E | F-16C | F/A-18C | Mirage 2000C | JF-17 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19P | MiG-21bis | AJS-37 | AV-8B | L39 | C-101 | A-10C/CII | Yak-52 | P-51D | P-47D | Fw 190 A-8/D-9 | Bf 109 | Spitfire | I-16 | UH-1 Huey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, Did -A Cats always need Zone 5 A/B when taking off from carriers? I was watching a F-14 Documentary recently which had footage from VF-1 and Vf-2s first cruise and some of the -A Tomcats in that footage didn't appear to be using afterburner as there were no bright exhausts. What could be the reason for this ?

 

I too have seen some references to Mil power catshots for As, and I'm wondering if the increasing weight of the A models maybe had to do with it? It may also have to do with the weight at launch and the loadout of the jet.

Heatblur Rivet Counting Squad™

 

VF-11 and VF-31 1988 [WIP]

VF-201 & VF-202 [WIP]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if memory servers (it's been ages since i read this the last time), engines were detuned, air-bleed reconfigured and engines reinforced to reduce damage to the plane in case of.... ahem.... "spontaneous self-combustion".....

 

So probably a bit more thrust on the early birds (like pre 1978 ), and greater chances for compressor stalls.

 

"Rapid, Unplanned, Disassembly."

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too have seen some references to Mil power catshots for As, and I'm wondering if the increasing weight of the A models maybe had to do with it? It may also have to do with the weight at launch and the loadout of the jet.

 

Almost all of those mil power shots were during CQ, with the aircraft less than fully fueled, with little or no ordnance. Essentially, it's gross weight, wind and temp conditions.

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard this and I can find no source other than people saying "I heard they were de-tuned." Here's the thing: the Preliminary Technical Order from June 1972 indicates an installed thrust of the TF-30P-412 (0 altitude, 0 airspeed) as 10,500lbs at military power and 17,000 pounds in max afterburner. Later NATOPS manuals refined the numbers for the -414/414A; the 1981, 1984, 1995 and 2004 manuals all show 10,875lbs military and 17,077lbs in max afterburner installed thrust (again at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed). That tells me the engine wasn't de-tuned. The aircraft did get heavier, though, so the thrust-to-weight ratio got worse on account of the jet itself, not the motors.

 

I'll try and find the sources (if they are still around - changed a few HDD's since) and see if there were any changes and if so how much. Might not even be the installed thrust that's changed, but the dynamic one available throughout different parts of the envelope. As i said though, not sure :dunno:

 

Edit: i have no idea how reliable this source is, but found it after a quick google:

 

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/pratt-whitney-tf30-p-412/

 

EDIT 2: scratch that, irrelevant

 

EDIT 3: i think i found it. F-14 Aircraft and propulsion control integration evaluation. Pages 4 and 5. Look under FADEC control.

 

 

 

"Rapid, Unplanned, Disassembly."

 

:D


Edited by captain_dalan

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try and find the sources (if they are still around - changed a few HDD's since) and see if there were any changes and if so how much. Might not even be the installed thrust that's changed, but the dynamic one available throughout different parts of the envelope. As i said though, not sure :dunno:

EDIT 3: i think i found it. F-14 Aircraft and propulsion control integration evaluation. Pages 4 and 5. Look under FADEC control.

 

Reading that document, it's about a test proposal of how a FADEC could benefit the TF-30P-414 engine's stability. It talks about AICS (ramp) scheduling, the benefits of a FADEC, and proposed testing. Pages 4-5 focus on what a FADEC could help with, and indicate an improvement to thrust, not a loss. As it stands, the TF-30 never got a FADEC, so it doesn't seem relevant to me.

 

That said, maybe there was a change at some point, maybe the engine doesn't make as much thrust at a given airspeed and altitude in an attempt to improve stability; I know the AICS was reprogrammed and implemented in 1976, but frankly have no idea how much of an impact that would have had, and that's specific to the ramps scheduling, not the engine. BUT! That's just a maybe; the documentation I've seen so far points to the contrary.


Edited by Quid
Grammar

Rig: i9 10900KF @5.3GHz | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 3600MHz | ASUS ROG STRIX RTX 3090 24GB OC | ASUS Maximus XII Formula | 2x 2TB Intel SSD6 NVMe M.2 | VKB F-14CG on Gunfighter III Base | TM Warthog HOTAS | TM Rudder Pedals | HP Reverb G2

Hangar: FC3 | F-86F | F-4E [Pre-Ordered] | F-5E | F-14A/B | F-15E | F-16C | F/A-18C | Mirage 2000C | JF-17 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19P | MiG-21bis | AJS-37 | AV-8B | L39 | C-101 | A-10C/CII | Yak-52 | P-51D | P-47D | Fw 190 A-8/D-9 | Bf 109 | Spitfire | I-16 | UH-1 Huey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, Did -A Cats always need Zone 5 A/B when taking off from carriers? I was watching a F-14 Documentary recently which had footage from VF-1 and Vf-2s first cruise and some of the -A Tomcats in that footage didn't appear to be using afterburner as there were no bright exhausts. What could be the reason for this ?

 

The F-14 as a result of the A's poor engine reliability was not allowed under normal operations to use it's afterburner on take off. The less needed fuel flow meant a flame out became less likely and it meant if it did happen as it has happened even on Mil power meant pilots if reacting quick enough had a much better change to counter act the A-symmetric thrust and save the aircraft.

 

Of course with some movies ect particularly in the Final Countdown and TOPGUN cinema era as these films were a good recruiting tool the Navy tended to allow full AB take offs for pictures or movies but it is technically a prohibited action during the the Tomcat's USN service.

 

Once the engines were switched to the F110 this rule became more or less redundant but was kept in the manuals/procedures for the F-14B and F-14D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading that document, it's about a test proposal of how a FADEC could benefit the TF-30P-414 engine's stability. It talks about AICS (ramp) scheduling, the benefits of a FADEC, and proposed testing. Pages 4-5 focus on what a FADEC could help with, and indicate an improvement to thrust, not a loss. As it stands, the TF-30 never got a FADEC, so it doesn't seem relevant to me.

 

That said, maybe there was a change at some point, maybe the engine doesn't make as much thrust at a given airspeed and altitude in an attempt to improve stability; I know the AICS was reprogrammed and implemented in 1976, but frankly have no idea how much of an impact that would have had, and that's specific to the ramps scheduling, not the engine. BUT! That's just a maybe; the documentation I've seen so far points to the contrary.

 

The way a read it, it limits the air available to the engine under certain conditions, so reducing thrust but increasing compressor stall resistance. But if it was never implemented.......

Odd, i guess more digging is in order. :huh:

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...