Why are the f14 instrument clusters so poorly designed?

Loving the f14b. Not as steep a learning curve as I expected but very deep and Im just scratching the surface.

Something that stood out. Jumping from a few other modules into F14, its remarkable how poorly laid out the cockpit (tid behind pilot stick) is, how confusing the instrument clusters (ex. speed and barometric pressure) and some highly questionable design choices (no speed indicator on HUD - really?, rwr rings that dont correspond to distance but priority).

It's amazing how much worse my situational awareness is in this cockpit compared to the su27.

Anyone else feel similarly or disagree? Anyone know the history behind some of these design choices?

Did the design and clusters get redesigned in the D models?

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

That's how every Us rwr works actually.

Su27 you say ? LoL I bet you have worse sa... no irst, no magical datalink etc etc

The F-14A/B was probably the last US fighter cockpit that was so analog. You have to remember these were flying and in service in '74 or '75, I can't remember off the top of my head. The F-15 that was developed a view years later still was all analog but with a better HUD. I was very surprised myself that the airspeed isn't displayed in the HUD in air/air or cruise mode. Over the course of the 70s a lot of improvements in cockpit design if you look at the F-14 to F-15 to F-16/18. Lots of labor saving and user friendly upgrades that cut down on the pilot's workload were a major priority for the engineers.

I think you’re not taking into consideration the era when then aircraft was designed. Remember, you’re flying something from the late 60s, You’re lucky it even HAS a HUD! The original Tomcat HUD that we have is only for course navigation and weapon system employment. It is not a primary flight instrument like it is on a modern aircraft. You need to fly using gauges, and eyeballs out the window. The A/B models of the jet got a midlife HUD upgrade called the Sparrowhawk which modernised things significantly. And the D model got a HUD that is probably comparable to that of the F-15 or F-16 in regards to functionality.

Regarding having the TID behind the stick, well it would be much less of a problem irl as you can look around things much more easily then you can in the sim, also with a good Rio it should be something you’re only looking at occasionally and not referencing constantly.

Also all US RWRs work on threat priority, not distance.

I don't know of any RWR that is distance based, they are all directional taking into account strength, type, whether locked or guiding, to approximate intensity of threat. You cannot measure distance based on strength and intensity, and fighters aren't large enough to triangulate.

The 14 layout is pretty standard analogue, the hud is what that era hud is. Its better in the sim than RL. MFDs are what they are for the era, the jet's rocking like 4kb of RAM... thing changed a lot from 1980 to 2000...

fwiw, analogue/vacuum gauges have certain aspects that are nice. Less so in a sim, but RL they are very readable, reliable, needle speed gives you a sense of rate of change, etc. I agree having airspeed in the HUD would be great, perhaps we'll get a 14D one day- apg71, IRST, spamraaams... not sure that would be more fun though!

I agree having no ias on the hud and having to look down a lot takes some getting used too. However as far as situational awareness goes I find the Tomcat allows me more situational awareness than other fighter types mainly because of jester. I’ve honestly had more air to air success in the F14 than anything else. Flying against two Mig29s for example I rippled off Phoenix missiles and managed to down one bvr the second got past me and was flying very low just above see level. I couldn’t see him but my Rio did called out his location and guided me onto him. I still couldn’t see him but put my airplane in auto acquisition mode which picked him up I instantly fired off a sparrow which took him down. In the F15 I dare say I wouldn’t have picked him up visually and he probably would have got me. The other thing that’s helped is Jester reminding me of missiles incoming and telling which direction to break.

Thank you guys for all of these interesting points. A lot of you are mentioning the same thing - that it was developed in the 60's. I did some digging and I want to run this past you in case I missed something.

Some background

F14 - The F-14 first flew on 21 December 1970 and made its first deployment in 1974 with the U.S. Navy aboard USS Enterprise (CVN-65), replacing the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. (wikipedia)

Su27 - "The Sukhoi design, which was altered progressively to reflect Soviet awareness of the F-15's specifications, emerged as the T-10 (Sukhoi's 10th design), which first flew on 20 May 1977." (wikipedia)

I'm ignore the variants - So basically both of these planes were designed in the 60's and deployed in the 70's.

One specific area that I felt was missing in F14. Lack of distance/strength of Radar threat. You all mentioned that all US aircraft are organized the same way - threat type organized around progressive concentric rings (closest least threat, furthest greatest threat) but that RWR doesn't indicate range/strength of threat.

Sk000tch - you said "I don't know of any RWR that is distance based, they are all directional taking into account strength, type, whether locked or guiding, to approximate intensity of threat. You cannot measure distance based on strength and intensity, and fighters aren't large enough to triangulate.

However, in the Su27, the RWR does exactly that.

"In 1976, design of the SPO-15 was finished [design started in 1969], and by 1978 it was in production. This could produce warning on hostile search as well as tracking, determine type of threat and level of danger."

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=48.0

See attachd image - Having "relative emisison power" of threat is a huge asset to situational awareness.

What I am confused by is that the Russians admitted the US were way ahead of them with regards to avionics in the documentary on Su27 development (

Then how is it possible that the russian su27 developed and deployed in the same time frame as the F14 has a more sophisticated and arguably easier to understand RWR than the F14?

What am I missing here?

wait the RWR on the f14 rings doesnt actually mean distance/range?

wait the RWR on the f14 rings doesnt actually mean distance/range?

Nope...

Relative Bearing and Strength Of Signal.

Chucks guide indicates the A-10C RWR is strength based.

The beryoza will accurately tell you distance of active missile. In real life strength indicator moves up and down with the pulse frequency

Su-27 entered service in 1985 like 10 years after f-14. Also what you see as a FC-3 su27 is not what the real aircraft was back in the 1980s. Navigation, radio is much worst, irst and radar are much more unreliable irl, especially irst. The refresh rate of the hud is also not that smooth as you see it. They also suffer from very unreliable hud this is why they have always hud repeater on the display. Datalink is not even close to what we have in fc3.

You are comparing fc3 aircraft which is very simplified and made to be balanced in comparison to the other fc3, also why fc3 f-15 missing essential features like datalink.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

Wait till you see F-4 cockpit and try to switch weapons in a dogfight.

The F14 cockpit is not that bad. The stick obstructing TID so much is actually a bug (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3845574). The HUD is one of the earliest ones, and you can see it's already more advanced than in the Viggen. The aircraft has a semi functional HOTAS, and the instruments are even more readable than on Russian aircraft.

You are wrong about the Su-27's RWR. It doesn't indicate distance. It indicates signal strength. Now, by virtue of the fact, when you're closer to said emitter, the SnR increases, which is maybe why you think indicates range. Thus, the closer emitter is more threatening.

The F-14 RWR is miles better than what is in the SPO-15 RWR. It gives you a solid indication of all threats out, not just 2, also it gives you the type and its state. The march of the detected emitter outward on the RWR threat zones is more complex than the SPO-15, since it not only takes SnR into account, but also the state of the threat emitter, i.e. is it in search, tracking, guiding, launching, etc.

It seems to me the instrument cluster is just reflective of era. Yes you can’t use the HUD as your primary flight instrument but the instruments are close to the line of sight, and on my 1440p ultra wide display it is quite legible.

As for the RWR it is miles easier than the Russian version, the AN/ALR-67 of course is a later development than what was originally in the Tomcat (the AN/ALR-45). I expect we will see the AN/ALR-45 when we get the F-14A.

To be honest, being used to not having a HUD through flying WWII props in IL2, the F-14 instrumentation is about as close to optimal layout as I can think. "Close your eyes and imagine where an instrument should be, open you eyes and it's there". Sure, stuff isn't on the HUD, but once you learn the symbology, I find the minimalism is actually really helpful. I hate the clutter of the F-15 HUD. I love this '70s pit 8)

Flying in VR I have no issue glancing over or around the stick to see the HSI/TDI. If you play on screen, there's an option somewhere in the game menu to hide the stick. This should help you see better.

I also thought the RWR was illogical, then I understood it. The highest threat is on the outside, not because it's furthest (that would be backwards), but because this gives you the widest possible scale to judge bearing accurately for things you really need to notch. It's counter-intuitive but very clever.

I do find Beryoza a lot easier to read at a glance and understand intuitively (I guess that's the point of it), but with practice the US RWRs tell you a lot, lot more.

My only complaint about F-14 instruments is the ASI is impossible to read a glance. I understand the logic as to why the Mach scale is more prominent, but it's still very annoying, especially in ACM or landing pattern

As for Su-27, the SA you have in that thing is very unrealistic. Don't use that as comparison. At least compare an F-15 or a MiG-29.

I think it’s a bit lazy to say that that the arrangement of the instrument cluster in the F14 simply reflects that it’s an old aircraft. Obviously the analog nature of it is but I’d say that it also reflects a lack of understanding by the designers of the aircraft. Similar to most US aircrafts little effort is put in to creating a cockpit that supports the pilot.

Viggen is a good comparison. I’d say that the layout is far easier for the pilot to use. Especially the hud symbology that gives the pilot a lot or information by use of very simple graphics.

Flying in VR I have no issue glancing over or around the stick to see the HSI/TDI. If you play on screen, there's an option somewhere in the game menu to hide the stick. This should help you see better.

There isn't yet, but HB says they will be including the option.

There isn't yet, but HB says they will be including the option.

Sorry my bad, I thought it was a game option, I've seen it in the settings, didn't realise it had to be implemented plane by plane.

I think it’s a bit lazy to say that that the arrangement of the instrument cluster in the F14 simply reflects that it’s an old aircraft. Obviously the analog nature of it is but I’d say that it also reflects a lack of understanding by the designers of the aircraft. Similar to most US aircrafts little effort is put in to creating a cockpit that supports the pilot.

I don't agree with. The location of the analogue instruments on the F-14 panel is about as logical as it gets (see my previous post). I doubt that after designing carrier fighters for 30 years at that point Grumman (or other US fighter makers) "lacked understanding" of how to make an ergonomic cockpit. These guys were expert engineers that worked with the pilots. The complaint in the original post is to do with lack of information on the HUD, which is a sign of the times but far from crippling in the ability to fly and fight the aircraft.

State of the art when the aircraft hit the fleet. Instruments easy to read and logically laid out. I had over 1000 hours in the A4, T2C a d T34C, followed by 50-60 hours in the F14 sims and 300 hours of manual and publications study before first flight. You guys have jumped into an unfamiliar module after flying aircraft from the future and are being critical.

Why is a Lotus 49 so archaic compared to this year's Ferrari SF90?

State of the art when the aircraft hit the fleet. Instruments easy to read and logically laid out. I had over 1000 hours in the A4, T2C a d T34C, followed by 50-60 hours in the F14 sims and 300 hours of manual and publications study before first flight. You guys have jumped into an unfamiliar module after flying aircraft from the future and are being critical.

 

Why is a Lotus 49 so archaic compared to this year's Ferrari SF90?

Whats wrong with the placement of indicators ? thay are perfectly placed. the speed and alt indicators are on the Left hand side of the dash because its a more easy instinctive look positon for human eyes to look left then to look right.! saim as its easyer to lay in to a left hand corner with a motorbike than laying in to a right hand corner. nothing wrong with the gages positions exept the MFD with the radar on it. that could have been placed a bit higher somewhere. it definatly is a problem for me in game. but l can imagine that irl it wouldnt be that much of a deal as humans have 2 eyes and you can see things behined objects if 1 eye isnt obsecured. but in game you have 1 eye ( camera )

I honestly don't think the Tomcat's pit is laid out poorly at all, with the exception of the difficulties in seeing the TiD in the pilot's seat. Then again the only other module with a HUD I fly is the Viggen, so I'm used to looking at dials.

You guys are spoiled. Sorry I guess you need to fly other types of planes in just the top of the line current models. You need to see how evolution of technology and design happens.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

What I am confused by is that the Russians admitted the US were way ahead of them with regards to avionics in the documentary on Su27 development (

).

 

Then how is it possible that the russian su27 developed and deployed in the same time frame as the F14 has a more sophisticated and arguably easier to understand RWR than the F14?

 

What am I missing here?

The US was way ahead in terms of avionics. Soviet era radars and other electronics were in most ways inferior in any given given year. The SU27 and mig29 radar development were both quite problematic and both radars despite being developed a decade after the AWG-9 were inferior in most respects.

I also think you are misunderstanding some dates, the F14 was operational in 1974/5, the first prototype SU27 flew in 1977, they didn't make it operational squadrons until the 1985 a decade later than the F14. Moreover the soviets didn't know about the F15 specs until the end of the 60's so maybe a design spec for the SU27 was issued in 1969 or whatever, but to say the Su-27 was designed in the 60's is untrue, the bulk of the airframe/engine development occured in the 1970's, and most of the avionics featured on the production aircraft were from the late 70's early 80's.

I honestly don't think the Tomcat's pit is laid out poorly at all, with the exception of the difficulties in seeing the TiD in the pilot's seat. Then again the only other module with a HUD I fly is the Viggen, so I'm used to looking at dials.

Mostly this... I think the overall layout is ok. The HUD is functional. I fly in VR so the TID is no issue. The only real complaint I have is the gauges are hard to read in VR, but wouldn't be IRL.

The US was way ahead in terms of avionics. Soviet era radars and other electronics were in most ways inferior in any given given year. The SU27 and mig29 radar development were both quite problematic and both radars despite being developed a decade after the AWG-9 were inferior in most respects.

What I think needs to be discussed, is that the Soviet doctrine was less focused on the aircraft using their radar as a search tool, and more as a tracking tool. Their strength was using ground based radar to search for, and guide to contacts. Once the aircraft was in place, it would use its radar in the final stages of attack to prosecute the target. Further, the aircraft only existed as a supplement to the air defense coverage. It was a very large supplement, and some would say it was equal to the SAM systems in place. Once the idea of Soviet air doctrine being primarily defensive in nature, a lot of what looks like being "behind" comes into focus as being specific to their needs. I would say that their air defenses, and radar control of aircraft, was far superior to the US's for many years. It's because their strategy was of full-on defense, no matter what the propaganda of a Soviet invasion of Europe would show.