New interview with Cobra

I dont know. How many settings do the flaps positions have in the 109?

Infinite - with the wheel you can set them to any position you want (no discrete positions but analogue setting).

I don't dare to imagine the necessary math for those calculations for a varaible swept wing aircraft, but afaik DCS should allow that. An SFM has some hands full of parameters for different situations (i.e. airspeed/Mach, etc.), but everything that uses AFM or better calculates all forces (literally, lol) on-the-fly. DCS gives you the environmental data (i.e. airspeed) and the FM logic calculates how the aircraft reacts to that - under the current configuration and attitude.

In theory, infinite number of settings (between extremes), because they were "analog" devices and stopped wherever you wanted them to. I don't know how DCS FM handles this though. Very interesting question!

Edit - sniped by Flagrum :D.

If it is a 'loop' programming problem each time thru the loop, it looks up the sweep angle, and does the calc from that.

When sideslipping, the FM is modeling variable drag from your "sideways AoA."

So, along with the variable lift and drag from the 109 flaps, variable wing geometry shouldn't be an "alien thing" in DCS.

Doesn't the Tomcat only have three wing positions anyway? (not counting oversweep which has to be done on the ground manually) The control for setting the wing sweep is a slidey lever thing on the left side above the throttle and I think I remember it has 20 degree, 40 something degree and 68 degree increments.

It's been a while but I think I remember the NATOPS manual mentions that there is a manual override but the wings still drift to the incremental stops eventually, they're like slots inside the wing glove that the wings drop into and lock... I think.

The manual also mentions the effects that asymmetrical wing sweep can have, ie it's possible for the left wing to be swept all the way back while the right wing is in the 20 degree position owing to a failure.

I have the manual knocking around somewhere, I'm happy to be corrected and informed on technical details.

We also have helicopters in DCS. With every revolution, each blade does a complete 360 degree change in sweep angle, in addition to rotating about the aircraft, changing pitch, speed and even flexing. It doesn't seem to be a problem.

I shall now pitch a new idea, DCS Hawk. No, not that hawk, the one with feathers. :D

Edit: Ninja'd, to answer the above, you're thinking of the MiG-23. The F-14's had automatically controlled continuous sweep. The MiG-23's had 3 preset positions and I think the F-111 worked the same way.

In theory, infinite number of settings (between extremes), because they were "analog" devices and stopped wherever you wanted them to. I don't know how DCS FM handles this though. Very interesting question!

 

Edit - sniped by Flagrum :D.

Indeed. I would definitely like to know more about how the DCS engine handles variable geometry, since it's something that isn't inherently obvious.

When sideslipping, the FM is modeling variable drag from your "sideways AoA."

So, along with the variable lift and drag from the 109 flaps, variable wing geometry shouldn't be an "alien thing" in DCS.

That's not it though. The wing is still the same geometry. The side slip is a result of all the force vectors in a turn, the wing's position relative to the plane isn't any different. With a swept wing plane each different position of the wings turns the plane into a whole new airframe.

With a swept wing plane each different position of the wings turns the plane into a whole new airframe.

You can say the same about this wing config with extended slats and flaps :)

Its quite simple really: 68 to 20 degrees? The simple answer is to make 48 different flight models, which the jet must change through as it progresses from one degree of sweep to the next :P

I just thought of something that's kind of worrying (I hope Im wrong about this) with regards to the development of the F14 but indeed this should apply to any swing wing airframe in DCS.

Did you think about the fact that each PFM in the game is pretty much custom and tailor-made to the airframe?

Also, DCS mostly has little to nothing to do with an EFM's operation. DCS provides input for the EFM to do its work with, such as atmospheric data, and the EFM provides the data to compute positional changes in DCS. The EFM does so by computing all the FM parameters ... well outside of DCS.

Even in DCS, the PFMs are not cookie-cutter. You can lose a wing on an F-15 and still fly ... as long as you fly the right parameters, or it'll spiral you into the ground. Someone mentioned heli rotors as well, and that's a pretty good point.

In any case, I think this 'sort of fixed wing' aircraft will be a V-22 ;)

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625

well, this article talks about how the RIO working is and relationship between 2 pilot. You can not finish your work without a great RIO. To those single wolf pilot with bot back seat.

Crew resource management (CRM) dictated what your job was for that specific flight. The majority of the cockpit was "decoupled", meaning there were certain things only the Pilot could perform, and certain things only the RIO could perform. It was a system of checks and balances. This strengthened the crew concept in my opinion, and added to the jet's lethality. When two guys had flown together a lot, it made them almost act and think as one person.

and this, your guys must know what they are.

Too bad they were never deployed on the F-14.

You can say the same about this wing config with extended slats and flaps :)

Yes, anywhere where the geometry of a wing changes.

It has the phoenix, that is all we need. :D

It has the phoenix, that is all we need. :D

If the 'cat is a planned module I can already taste the mission flexibility of two Phoenixes, two Sidewinders, and four Sparrows. :joystick:

Too bad they were never deployed on the F-14.

Well if we get the F-14D (which we won't of course, but you know, if) then LN can let us mount them on the wing glove pylons. The MiG-21 can't fire the Grom or so I've been told, but they're fudging it a bit so the plane can have so more interesting loadouts. No reason why they can't let us at least carry AMRAAMs on the gloves, or if they're feeling super nice to us, in the same configuration as the Sparrows were carried in the pancake. IIRC one of the AMRAAMs design specifications was it had to fit in existing Sparrow wells, though someone who knows more about that could probably say with greater certainty.

The F-14 will be uber with the Phoenix alone. No need for unrealistic AMRAAM loadouts.

Also, its not only the pylons... The Tomcats radar could not handle them and would have needed some updates.

Duck test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

What if it's a witch?

Too bad they were never deployed on the F-14.

Apparently the Navy had to choose between those and the LANTIRN integration and opted for the latter.

But, I suppose the D version is not the variant being developed (in case Tomcat is in fact being developed by LNS) so this whole AMRAAM digression is probably out of scope. Having said that, I suppose having the AMRAAM as a loadout option for the D would be a good thing as it would provide more flexibility. It can always be locked out by the scenario designer if authentic scenario is needed.

The MiG-21 can't fire the Grom or so I've been told

MiG-21PFM had them from '68, unsure if specifically the Bis used them.

https://books.google.no/books?id=6s_vBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT116&lpg=PT116&dq=mig-21+kh-66&source=bl&ots=IIvRkjhHr8&sig=KwyPJ8NXyDVTYF1Z-ZGAFJXH54Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zz3SVKPYHoTgyQOjloBg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=mig-21%20kh-66&f=false

MiG-21PFM had them from '68, unsure if specifically the Bis used them.

Didn't and couldn't, because of different radar, it's been discussed here many times already. Not the first and not the last error in Gordon's book (excellent read nevertheless).

Given the fact that Kh-66 in DCS MiG module has become a bit controversial subject lately, I'd say LN will probably think twice before adding some "fantasy" layout for Tomcat.

From what I've read on the issue, the ability to use the Grom was lost when the radar was updated. Basically, our radar shouldn't have beam mode on it and thus we shouldn't be able to use any of the beam riders. I happen to agree with LNS's decision on the matter though. Our MiG-21 is somewhat of a place holder for the entire MiG-21 line from 1960 to 1980. So for a realistic scenario, you would restrict the missile types according to period. If you wanted the actual Bis, you'd remove all the beam riders. If you wanted it to play the role of a Vietnam war model though, you'd remove the R-60 and allow the beam riders instead. It isn't strictly correct of course, but I just don't see us getting 3-4 different MiG-21's at study sim level to do it 100% correct. I do not think fudging the F-14 to use AIM-120's is appropriate though. It is unnecessary and none of them used them anyways. I do support doing an upgraded A with ground attack ability though as that is realistic.

Didn't and couldn't, because of different radar, it's been discussed here many times already. Not the first and not the last error in Gordon's book (excellent read nevertheless).

 

Given the fact that Kh-66 in DCS MiG module has become a bit controversial subject lately, I'd say LN will probably think twice before adding some "fantasy" layout for Tomcat.

Thanks for the info. Yefim, I am disappoint ;(.