[RESOLVED] Nozzles not closing in SEC mode

According to Natops (and the F-16 as well - same engine), in SEC mode the nozzle closes completely and there is a slight rise in RPM. This is not currently modeled in the F-14.

According to Natops (and the F-16 as well - same engine), in SEC mode the nozzle closes completely and there is a slight rise in RPM. This is not currently modeled in the F-14.

Agreed. I made post about this a few days ago. Someone said they’d take a look at it. Hopefully fix incoming soon.

It’s in HB’s own manual also. I was actually investigating the engines yesterday and noticed Secondary Mode doesn’t appear to be implemented, among other odd behaviors.

I never worked on the F-14, but I have a lot of engine run experience with F-110’s, in test cell and on the F-16. The cockpit engine tapes in the 14 don’t react how I’d expect at all to throttle movements. The RPM tape stays at 100% through a wide range of throttle positions, FF barely rises with AB, and so on.

The 14 and 16 could be rigged and scheduled totally different though so who knows.

(Aside, did ED ever properly model T5 Override on their TF-34’s? It hadn’t been by the time I stopped playing.)

SEC mode is modeled, this just sounds like a nozzle bug.

I noticed that too among a few other inconsistencies while going through the checklist. The nozzles don't move at all when switching on SEC mode.

SEC mode is modeled, this just sounds like a nozzle bug.

Thanks for chiming in!

I think a rise in RPM should also happen when the nozzle closes, so it doesn't seem to be just a visual bug.

Thanks for chiming in!

I think a rise in RPM should also happen when the nozzle closes, so it doesn't seem to be just a visual bug.

Do you have a source for that? I haven’t read anything indicating the RPM should rise outside of increased windmilling speed.

Do you have a source for that? I haven’t read anything indicating the RPM should rise outside of increased windmilling speed.

The F-14B NATOPs pocket checklist indicates that rpm should drop, not rise, during SEC mode. That’s on the ground at least.

Are the engine tapes we have now the correct ones yet? The HB manual still identifies them as TF-30 indicators and the correct F110 indicators are coming later.

The F-14B NATOPs pocket checklist indicates that rpm should drop, not rise, during SEC mode. That’s on the ground at least.

I may have modeled that, can’t remember but I’ll check tonight. I do model inlet rumble at low RPM in SEC mode.

Are the engine tapes we have now the correct ones yet? The HB manual still identifies them as TF-30 indicators and the correct F110 indicators are coming later.

Correct, the current engine indicator is for the TF30. The proper EIG art will come soon though.

I may have modeled that, can’t remember but I’ll check tonight. I do model inlet rumble at low RPM in SEC mode.

Sounds good. The nozzle shift during ground test in SEC is the most obvious omission at the moment. ( sorry I originally said ‘great work’ and meant it as a general compliment, but realise now it may have sounded sarcastic and ungrateful. Wasn’t meant to).

I must’ve broken it at some point doing some refactoring, it used to work!

It’s in HB’s own manual also. I was actually investigating the engines yesterday and noticed Secondary Mode doesn’t appear to be implemented, among other odd behaviors.

I never worked on the F-14, but I have a lot of engine run experience with F-110’s, in test cell and on the F-16. The cockpit engine tapes in the 14 don’t react how I’d expect at all to throttle movements. The RPM tape stays at 100% through a wide range of throttle positions, FF barely rises with AB, and so on.

The 14 and 16 could be rigged and scheduled totally different though so who knows.

(Aside, did ED ever properly model T5 Override on their TF-34’s? It hadn’t been by the time I stopped playing.)

Well, the CORE RPM shouldn't increase from MIL to MAX AB, why would you see an increase in fuel flow? IIRC the FF gauges don't show AB FF, just like the Hornet.

I must’ve broken it at some point doing some refactoring, it used to work!

By the way, do you work on the RPM at supersonic speeds? Why when I am at supersonic speeds and I pull the throttle back the RPM goes below MIL? I guess RPM lockup isn't modeled yet?

It’s in HB’s own manual also. I was actually investigating the engines yesterday and noticed Secondary Mode doesn’t appear to be implemented, among other odd behaviors.

I never worked on the F-14, but I have a lot of engine run experience with F-110’s, in test cell and on the F-16. The cockpit engine tapes in the 14 don’t react how I’d expect at all to throttle movements. The RPM tape stays at 100% through a wide range of throttle positions, FF barely rises with AB, and so on.

The 14 and 16 could be rigged and scheduled totally different though so who knows.

(Aside, did ED ever properly model T5 Override on their TF-34’s? It hadn’t been by the time I stopped playing.)

The FF Tapes in 14 don't show A/B FF only dry thrust.

So the current tapes dont show correct info for 110s?

The tapes only show dry FF, no AB FF. Also RPM does not really change much beyond the AB throttle detent according to all of my sources.

By the way, do you work on the RPM at supersonic speeds? Why when I am at supersonic speeds and I pull the throttle back the RPM goes below MIL? I guess RPM lockup isn't modeled yet?

Do you have documentation about the RPM lockup protection logic in the supersonic flight regime?

Do you have documentation about the RPM lockup protection logic in the supersonic flight regime?

Unfortunately I don't. Maybe you could ask ED engineers? They have tons of documents about western jet engines.

Hornet has this feature implemented very well by the way.

Unfortunately I don't. Maybe you could ask ED engineers? They have tons of documents about western jet engines.

 

Hornet has this feature implemented very well by the way.

Unless someone can produce documentation that this functionality exists specifically on the F110’s fuel control system (I’ve seen none), I can’t add it.

Well, the CORE RPM shouldn't increase from MIL to MAX AB, why would you see an increase in fuel flow?

Correct, core RPM would not increase with AB. I was saying the RPM doesn’t decrease as much as expected when throttles are pulled back. It seems most flight regimes are at 98-100% engine RPM, regardless of throttle position or thrust output. I’m not too worried about it though, if we don’t have the correct tapes yet I’ll wait to do any serious observations.

IIRC the FF gauges don't show AB FF, just like the Hornet.

That explains it, maybe I missed that in the manual. The Hornet does show total FF though, including AB.