The Glorious F14A

[razo+r]

Not in the OB-Update changelog for today......

 

Getting frustrating. My bet is, that the Forrestal isnt included eiter...

Need to do another search for the HB-statement that F-14A and Forrestal will come beginning of October. I know, its somewhere, but finding it wont help I guess....

 

You should read a bit more: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/7126047-dcs-f-14-development-update-enter-the-a

[Flamin_Squirrel]

 

You should read a bit more: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/7126047-dcs-f-14-development-update-enter-the-a

 

They did: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/288278-dcs-f-14-priority-issues

 

With the launch of the -A and thus taking a giant leap towards feature complete status, we will turn our attention to improving existing systems as we continue to refine and complete the aircraft.

Stay tuned as we begin discussing the sweeping changes to the F-14 coming in October next week!

[Top Jockey]

You A drivers are in trouble. I just bought the Mig21 on the fall sale. Might actually find my way to an online server with the wiley Fishbed. Check six boys...

 

No way; every time I go up in my F-14 I'm virtually invincible...

[stuart666]

• F-14A-95-GR: Early F-14A for IRIAF. These jets will have certain limitations and modifications, such as the lack of TCS and fuel pylons.
  
• F-14A-135-GR (Early): This will be an earlier representation of the F-14A, equipped with the ALR-45 RWR and will also come with a number of minor variations such as early gun vents, alternate de-fog systems, and other minor differences between late and early ALR-45 equipped F-14A’s.
  
• F-14A-135-GR (Late): This version represents a later, ALR-67 equipped F-14A.
  

What complete and total rockstars these guys are.

[draconus]

What complete and total rockstars these guys are.

 

I know, right?! They always act like naysayers, then Bam! we get more and more, even stuff they said was correct or won't do, like the stick position, more A versions, the lighting fix before... :thumbup:

I wouldn't be surprised seeing those goddamn vanes after a few months...

[Skysurfer]

Something I think you guys might find interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20100615180813/http://ausairpower.net/engines.pdf

[Victory205]

One thing that probably will be surprising given the misconceptions I see online. The engines don't stall very often. I canvassed F14 crews from several decades, and the average time between compressor stalls was ~1600 hours.

 

All of these pilots knew the best practices, which were easy to apply.

 

I truly was astonished at how close the Heatblur F14A was in performance, right out of the box. I have a handful of known data points that I check, and they were all spot on, requiring minor tweaking at most.

 

The team is dedicated to getting it right. Be patient and apply reasonable logic with respect to dates and features. Getting it right is difficult.

 

The module is work of art. I enjoy just looking at it.

[CheckGear]

• F-14A-95-GR: Early F-14A for IRIAF. These jets will have certain limitations and modifications, such as the lack of TCS and fuel pylons.
  
• F-14A-135-GR (Early): This will be an earlier representation of the F-14A, equipped with the ALR-45 RWR and will also come with a number of minor variations such as early gun vents, alternate de-fog systems, and other minor differences between late and early ALR-45 equipped F-14A’s.
  
• F-14A-135-GR (Late): This version represents a later, ALR-67 equipped F-14A.
  

What complete and total rockstars these guys are.

 

You mean... WE GET THREE MODELS OF THE F-14A???

[Swordsman422]

 

You mean... WE GET THREE MODELS OF THE F-14A???

 

Apparently with enough optional details to represent further versions once the list is completed. Zero reason for anyone to complain that they didn't get the A they wanted by end of EA.

[Nexus-6]

Zero reason for anyone to complain that they didn't get the A they wanted by end of EA.

 

This is an online gaming community. People will complain about anything. Lol

 

In all seriousness though, you're right. This is quite a bit more than what we were initially promised. Good God, the F-14B, plus a Forrestal class carrier, plus three variants of the A model?? That's a game all by itself right there.

 

[CheckGear]

 

Apparently with enough optional details to represent further versions once the list is completed. Zero reason for anyone to complain that they didn't get the A they wanted by end of EA.

 

Well, they won't be complaining anymore, that's for sure!

 

They're not kidding when they say they're delivering more bang for the buck!

[LanceCriminal86]

One thing that probably will be surprising given the misconceptions I see online. The engines don't stall very often. I canvassed F14 crews from several decades, and the average time between compressor stalls was ~1600 hours.

 

All of these pilots knew the best practices, which were easy to apply.

 

I truly was astonished at how close the Heatblur F14A was in performance, right out of the box. I have a handful of known data points that I check, and they were all spot on, requiring minor tweaking at most.

 

The team is dedicated to getting it right. Be patient and apply reasonable logic with respect to dates and features. Getting it right is difficult.

 

The module is work of art. I enjoy just looking at it.

 

At some point, would you be willing to put together some bullet points for fighting in the A ? With the B's extra thrust I believe that the vertical fight was often an option but I'm wondering how the A's differs in terms of tactics. I take it preserving energy will be more important?

 

Would also love to see some of those best practices!

[r4y30n]

 

With the B's extra thrust I believe that the vertical fight was often an option but I'm wondering how the A's differs in terms of tactics. I take it preserving energy will be more important?

 

It really depends on who you're up against. When the A was new it could go into the vertical against most perceived threats. The linked video is an F-4 vs an F-14A at Miramar in the '70s.

[G.J.S]

I have a handful of known data points that I check, and they were all spot on, requiring minor tweaking at most.

 

The module is work of art. I enjoy just looking at it.

 

Hiya Victory205, you being an ex turkey driver, I appreciate you confirming certain data points being accurate to your own experience with the Grumman Iron. But - knowing it intimately as you certainly will, are there any aspects of the external modelling that are glaringly innaccurate to you?

During my time in the RAF I “interacted” with F-14s a couple of times, typically when a carrier was transiting nearby, and I am very familiar with an F-14s nose! (Don’t ask! It’s too painful). I have less experience of viewing an F-14 from the rear - and I tried hard!

However, I (and a couple others) have noticed a modelling error that is very visible, regarding the tailerons.

Have you seen it, or any other errors that may scream out to you?

[Victory205]

 

Hiya Victory205, you being an ex turkey driver, I appreciate you confirming certain data points being accurate to your own experience with the Grumman Iron. But - knowing it intimately as you certainly will, are there any aspects of the external modelling that are glaringly innaccurate to you?

During my time in the RAF I “interacted” with F-14s a couple of times, typically when a carrier was transiting nearby, and I am very familiar with an F-14s nose! (Don’t ask! It’s too painful). I have less experience of viewing an F-14 from the rear - and I tried hard!

However, I (and a couple others) have noticed a modelling error that is very visible, regarding the tailerons.

Have you seen it, or any other errors that may scream out to you?

 

What do you see with the stabilators?

 

Only aspect that I see are due to the limitations of the DCS engine that has already been discussed at length like ground friction due to carrier flight deck limitations, catapult shots are slight different, but there is nothing that HB can do about those, plus the ship's flow modeling, etc. We're always trying to get the last few percent of the flight model correct, and while the Tomcat's aerodynamics are complex (a lot of unconventional moving parts), it is in my opinion, the best flight model of anything that I've tried in DCS by far. For example, a lot of DCS aircraft suffer from poor directional stability, especially in the landing configuration that isn't present in real life.

 

As far as fighting in the A, it's very similar to the B, you just need to be a little more deft in your energy management. It doesn't get out of the hole if you piss it all away, but you can still use the vertical and it's performance down low is exemplary. You're still gonna be up against the G limit on the deck.

 

This may surprise you, but I've never pulled the wings off of any aircraft in the sim. It may come from a sense of what an airplane can do, knowing from experience how to limit the pull at high speeds. In a real aircraft, that comes from stick force and G, in a sim, it's all based on stick displacement. You really need to pay attention to buffet, and listen to the wind rush for velocity if you can't look at the ASI for some reason.

[G.J.S]

 

What do you see with the stabilators?

 

Only aspect that I see are due to the limitations of the DCS engine that has already been discussed at length like ground friction due to carrier flight deck limitations, catapult shots are slight different, but there is nothing that HB can do about those, plus the ship's flow modeling, etc. We're always trying to get the last few percent of the flight model correct, and while the Tomcat's aerodynamics are complex (a lot of unconventional moving parts), it is in my opinion, the best flight model of anything that I've tried in DCS by far. For example, a lot of DCS aircraft suffer from poor directional stability, especially in the landing configuration that isn't present in real life.

 

As far as fighting in the A, it's very similar to the B, you just need to be a little more deft in your energy management. It doesn't get out of the hole if you piss it all away, but you can still use the vertical and it's performance down low is exemplary. You're still gonna be up against the G limit on the deck.

 

This may surprise you, but I've never pulled the wings off of any aircraft in the sim. It may come from a sense of what an airplane can do, knowing from experience how to limit the pull at high speeds. In a real aircraft, that comes from stick force and G, in a sim, it's all based on stick displacement. You really need to pay attention to buffet, and listen to the wind rush for velocity if you can't look at the ASI for some reason.

 

Hi, with the stabs, it’s the angle - there is no anhedral when there should be.

As for buffet in the last paragraph - that’s how I flew the F-4 (real world) years ago, your butt was the extra flight instrument, and when it went into high buffet, you roll with your boots.

[captain_dalan]

One thing that probably will be surprising given the misconceptions I see online. The engines don't stall very often. I canvassed F14 crews from several decades, and the average time between compressor stalls was ~1600 hours.

 

Man, i have less then 230 hours in the F-14B since it came out. At this rate, it will take me 6 years or something to experience the first one :joystick::megalol:

 

[WolfHound009]

 

Apparently with enough optional details to represent further versions once the list is completed. Zero reason for anyone to complain that they didn't get the A they wanted by end of EA.

 

Well said. The fact they are including an early -A completely caught me off guard and I'm so happy since that was the -A i always wanted. Im so glad that now we can all fly the airframes we want to.

[Top Jockey]

Man, i have less then 230 hours in the F-14B since it came out. At this rate, it will take me 6 years or something to experience the first one :joystick::megalol:

 

Almost 90 hours in the F-14B here (with a pilot profile exclusivelly for it), and more than 400 landings mostly in the Carrier !

[stuart666]

 

This is an online gaming community. People will complain about anything. Lol

 

In all seriousness though, you're right. This is quite a bit more than what we were initially promised. Good God, the F-14B, plus a Forrestal class carrier, plus three variants of the A model?? That's a game all by itself right there.

 

'The ashtray is full. Waaah!'

:D

[Victory205]

 

Hi, with the stabs, it’s the angle - there is no anhedral when there should be.

As for buffet in the last paragraph - that’s how I flew the F-4 (real world) years ago, your butt was the extra flight instrument, and when it went into high buffet, you roll with your boots.

 

LOL, I don't get involved in other people's fetishes... ;)

 

When I look at the stabs, they sometimes look like they have anhedral, sometimes dihedral, sometimes they look perfectly neutral, all depending upon what orientation they are in. TED looks like the former, TEU looks like the latter. The cockpit looks great, so I can't say that I've noticed in the module, or thought about it while flying the airplane. I do know this, the tug drivers on the ship hated the F14 stabs, when they were level, before the hydraulic pressure bleed off, the TE's were at the perfect height for cutting off the driver's head...

 

Every swept wing jet that I've flown behaves as you described at high alpha. Roll with rudder, the F14 rolls opposite stick, which wasn't that apparent in the A4 or F5.

 

The 757 by the way, blanked the rudder at extreme alpha, and didn't respond to rudder at all. It retained roll via aileron, to a small degree. I did this in the sim, not with a plane load of paying passengers... ;)

 

[G.J.S]

 

LOL, I don't get involved in other people's fetishes... ;)

 

When I look at the stabs, they sometimes look like they have anhedral, sometimes dihedral, sometimes they look perfectly neutral, all depending upon what orientation they are in. TED looks like the former, TEU looks like the latter. The cockpit looks great, so I can't say that I've noticed in the module, or thought about it while flying the airplane. I do know this, the tug drivers on the ship hated the F14 stabs, when they were level, before the hydraulic pressure bleed off, the TE's were at the perfect height for cutting off the driver's head...

 

Every swept wing jet that I've flown behaves as you described at high alpha. Roll with rudder, the F14 rolls opposite stick, which wasn't that apparent in the A4 or F5.

 

The 757 by the way, blanked the rudder at extreme alpha, and didn't respond to rudder at all. It retained roll via aileron, to a small degree. I did this in the sim, not with a plane load of paying passengers... ;)

 

Trust me, the stabs are wrong.

At zero pitch, look for the anhedral - there is none. For a module that strives for exact perfection - this oversight?

With your hours, you have never noticed?

[draconus]

 

Trust me, the stabs are wrong.

At zero pitch, look for the anhedral - there is none. For a module that strives for exact perfection - this oversight?

With your hours, you have never noticed?

 

This is already reported and awaiting correction. Patience....

[Victory205]

 

Trust me, the stabs are wrong.

At zero pitch, look for the anhedral - there is none. For a module that strives for exact perfection - this oversight?

With your hours, you have never noticed?

 

Trust me, no one who flew the aircraft cared about such minutia. We were too busy working to find the best tactics to fight the aircraft and facility the airwing and battle group put ordnance on target.

 

Brits are different. They tend to worship aircraft, collect Bureau Numbers and worry about setting up fly-by's and ceremonial events (the French were almost as bad). We had a crew do a static display during cruise and they said the airshow patrons would come up and asks questions, like, "do you have the TF30-P414A mod three mark zero with the dash 6178943771 blades in the fourth stage compressor section yet?

 

Charming, but WTF? ;)

 

Guess what, we called the AN/ARC−159A "The Radio" and the AN/ARN−84 "The TACAN". Anyone who corrected the person using the latter terms was stuffed into the nearest shit-can... ;)

 

There were a lot of esoteric aspects to the weapons system that I didn't want to know too much about in terms of how it functioned. Go torture the RIO, he knows more than me sort of thing...

 

[G.J.S]

 

Trust me, no one who flew the aircraft cared about such minutia. We were too busy working to find the best tactics to fight the aircraft and facility the airwing and battle group put ordnance on target.

 

Brits are different. They tend to worship aircraft, collect Bureau Numbers and worry about setting up fly-by's and ceremonial events (the French were almost as bad). We had a crew do a static display during cruise and they said the airshow patrons would come up and asks questions, like, "do you have the TF30-P414A mod three mark zero with the dash 6178943771 blades in the fourth stage compressor section yet?

 

Charming, but WTF? ;)

 

Guess what, we called the AN/ARC−159A "The Radio" and the AN/ARN−84 "The TACAN". Anyone who corrected the person using the latter terms was stuffed into the nearest shit-can... ;)

 

There were a lot of esoteric aspects to the weapons system that I didn't want to know too much about in terms of how it functioned. Go torture the RIO, he knows more than me sort of thing...

 

Enough of a dig at me Ray, or would you like to take a proper shot?

I asked about a flaw with the HB module, and (going by the tone of your posts) I seem to have put you on the defensive?

 

“No one who flew the aircraft cared about such minutia”.

I guess your pre flight walk arounds were completed in seconds then?

 

I asked about the tailerons - the stabs - I didn’t ask for details of longitudinal frame numbers, I didn’t ask for ‘esoteric aspects’ of the weapon system either, so I won’t be torturing your RIO.