F-14B with Sparrowhawk HUD

[Gunslinger22]

12 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

The F5 is a great trainer. Not a bad idea to master it before moving up. I’ve already mentioned the Korean era jets as good basic ACM platforms as well.

 

Of course people approach DCS in different ways. Some are interested in goofing around and that’s fine, but that approach isn’t interesting to me nor is it worth my time. I am most certainly not here for that, and if that is your mindset, you should skip my posts and go have fun doing your thing.

 

Flying instruments in jets is a bit different. Jet’s are flown on IFR flight plans almost universally, and even under VFR rules, they require IFR precision. That’s simply a facet of vector dynamics and higher energy states. A one degree pitch error at the end of a 480 knot vectors results in a smaller vertical velocity than if it is at the end of a 120 knot velocity vector.

 

One aspect to instrument training that you may find interesting Is that Navy jet students did blind takeoffs from day one. The student was under the bag, performing the takeoff using heading and airspeed, hile the instructor in the front seat monitored and gave heading adjustment commands. The reason for that should be obvious, and it paid dividends later.

 

We also did aerobatic maneuvers under the hood. Loop, Half Cuban 8, Immelmann, Split-S, aileron and barrel rolls. The A4 had a great attitude indicator for those maneuvers.

 

Most of the TACAN penetrations included DME arcs, flown using the BDHI, very straightforward. Also, “fix to fix” navigation was accomplished on every instrument flight. We had no Rnav, no GPS, and the INS wasn’t accurate enough, especially when the fix was moving. I used to sneak into the A4 sims at night when I was in Training Command to practice those, until I could do them confidently. I’d fly the instrument approaches that were coming up in the syllabus  over and over to learn the nuances. Friday nights were a great time to get a few extra hours of sim time, while everyone else was out partying. Good for them, the Fleet needed S3 pilots too. I’d fly until the sim techs kicked me out. Never regretted putting in the extra time, but I sure wish that Heatblur was around in 1981!

 

Keeping a jet on altitude, heading and airspeed all require attitude instrument flying technique. It’s power, attitude and trim, and you need to know the power (FF) and pitch attitude for the performance that you desire. It’s exactly like the PPL pilots here learned. 

 

The good news is that the Tomcat is very stable and easy to fly. The TA-4J was a handful, which made it a great trainer for the fleet aircraft that students would fly later. I could have also have an Active Pause Button a few times in the A4, but in the Tomcat, the RIO and the autopilot was a godsend to take some of the workload off..

It's been said, it'll be said again soon I'm sure. But cheers mate for the bloody wonderful insights, I reckon it'd be a strange environment for the real deal to be apart of, considering how many false intellects and internet SME's flood any flight sim forums throwing absolute conjecture around mudding the waters of reality and fiction. I think that the passion we simmers have for sims is a fine line between confusing our virtual experiences with that of real ones. 

[Wavehopper]

Victory's insights are massively helpful.

 

When I was 12 years old an RAF instructor told me at a careers event at my school in the early 90's that I would never be a jet pilot (I was skinny, and worse glasses).  Like an idiot I believed him and never pursued my dream of becoming a jet pilot for the RAF (I was in love with the Tomcat and the Tornado).

 

My only access to military jets has been through flight sims so I've poured everything into it and I'll devour whatever information I can get my hands on.  If an actual pilot tells us that how it was done, then that's how I'll learn to do it.  Having access to this type of information is invaluable and before the internet it just never happened so I'm extremely grateful to people like him sharing with plebs like us.

 

Basically, thanks to the SME's and to Heatblur for making a tremendous product.  This is as close as I'll ever get to my childhood dream and I'm very grateful for such a good rendition of carrier operations with my favourite jet.

[Victory205]

Well said.

 

I’m involved as a way to preserve the heritage of the aircraft and those who put so much effort into designing, building maintaining and flying the beast. It’s a way to share and preserve the legacy with everyone. The old girl deserves it. The whole thing was such a mystery to us until we got to finally have a go, but now, everyone can see what it was like.

 

Looking back, there is much I’d like to know about how various aircraft flew and were actually used tactically, but the folks who know the answers are long gone. Even the current owners of old war birds stay well within the middle of the envelopes, and don’t have access to full power, etc.

 

I’m also not the lone SME, many others have contributed far more than I, and the Heatblur gang have been fantastic all along. They are the ones that should get the full credit. 

Edited January 11, 2021 by Victory205
Syntax.

[Alphabet_Ghost]

1小时前,Victory205说:

Well said.

 

I’m involved as a way to preserve the heritage of the aircraft and those who put so much effort into designing, building maintaining and flying the beast. It’s a way to share it with everyone. The whole thing was such a mystery to all of us until we got to finally have a go, but now, everyone can see what it was like.

 

Looking back, there is much I’d like to know about how various aircraft flew and were used, but the folks who knew the answers are long gone.

 

I’m also not the lone SME, many others have contributed far more than I, and the Heatblur gang have been fantastic all along. They are the ones that should get the full credit. 

Hi man , allow me to ask an off-topic question , about AAR tips , you siad↓ , swept the wings aft when refueling , you mean wing sweep to BOMB ? or manual sweep to 68° ? and .. Looking forward to handing tips by victory205 (1/1) , LoL.

 

[Victory205]

Bomb mode is easiest to set up and is appropriate behind a 280 knot KC135, but a couple of clicks of manual “AFT” was what most pilots did, just to get the wings off of the “Auto” schedule. Organic tanking was done at 250KIAS, so that technique worked well. You don’t want the wings moving, and getting the nose up slightly was more comfortable.

 

Behind a C130, maybe only one click aft, and you might hold the maneuvers slats in the retracted position depending upon your weight and what speed he was lumbering along at.

 

Never at 68. 

 

The KC10 was the easiest platform to take off of. The KC135 was the most challenging.

[Nexus-6]

16 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

Bomb mode is easiest to set up and is appropriate behind a 280 knot KC135, but a couple of clicks of manual “AFT” was what most pilots did, just to get the wings off of the “Auto” schedule. Organic tanking was done at 250KIAS, so that technique worked well. You don’t want the wings moving, and getting the nose up slightly was more comfortable.

 

Behind a C130, maybe only one click aft, and you might hold the maneuvers slats in the retracted position depending upon your weight and what speed he was lumbering along at.

 

Never at 68. 

 

The KC10 was the easiest platform to take off of. The KC135 was the most challenging.

Huh.  I always assumed we were told to put the wings in "BOMB" to make things easier because it's a sim and we're amateurs.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Nexus-6
spelling

[Victory205]

Sometimes I forget that we have former USAF cargo drivers here. Sorry that you feel wounded. I can send you a per diem check and one of my puppy’s cuddle toys if you like.  

 

[Nexus-6]

I wasn't being sardonic. I really didn't know that.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Nexus-6

[Victory205]

Sorry, just thought that you needed a hug.

 

The raison d'etre for moving the wings aft was to put them in a position so they wouldn’t move and cause a pitch bobble while trying to plug into the basket. The secondary reason was to slightly increase the pitch, supposedly to get the tails out of the jet exhaust of something like a KA6, but that really wasn’t an issue. Same idea with the maneuver flaps, if either system was in a realm where they would actuate, then you were changing the trim and the pilot had to counter with a stick input.

 

Are you sure you don’t need a hug? With all of the lunacy going on right now, it’s understandable.  

[Nexus-6]

I just assumed it was one of those things that separated the sim from the real thing since there's no feel for what the aircraft is doing in DCS, and that real F-14 pilots didn't need to bother with it.

 

I'm also positive I don't need a hug.  That per diem check, however...

Edited January 11, 2021 by Nexus-6

[Victory205]

I should say that refueling in the sim is more difficult than in RL, once you got proficient there wasn’t much to actually plugging. Some of the night rendezvous got a little sporting...

 

The sim is mostly a control issue caused by differing controls, curves and screen response, which is dependent on each individual’s set up.

[Alphabet_Ghost]

18小时前,Victory205说:

Bomb mode is easiest to set up and is appropriate behind a 280 knot KC135, but a couple of clicks of manual “AFT” was what most pilots did, just to get the wings off of the “Auto” schedule. Organic tanking was done at 250KIAS, so that technique worked well. You don’t want the wings moving, and getting the nose up slightly was more comfortable.

 

Behind a C130, maybe only one click aft, and you might hold the maneuvers slats in the retracted position depending upon your weight and what speed he was lumbering along at.

 

Never at 68. 

 

The KC10 was the easiest platform to take off of. The KC135 was the most challenging.

thanks for reply , very detailed.

 

[eatthis]

22 hours ago, Victory205 said:

Bomb mode is easiest to set up and is appropriate behind a 280 knot KC135, but a couple of clicks of manual “AFT” was what most pilots did, just to get the wings off of the “Auto” schedule. Organic tanking was done at 250KIAS, so that technique worked well. You don’t want the wings moving, and getting the nose up slightly was more comfortable.

 

Behind a C130, maybe only one click aft, and you might hold the maneuvers slats in the retracted position depending upon your weight and what speed he was lumbering along at.

 

Never at 68. 

 

The KC10 was the easiest platform to take off of. The KC135 was the most challenging.

how does tanking compare ingame to real life? i find it the hardest thing to do in dcs (in the cat, the hornet is an absolute doddle/breeze!)

 

 

[RustBelt]

On 1/10/2021 at 12:07 PM, Nealius said:

 

In the few real-world flight lessons I've had, I've done exactly as you say: look at the instrument cluster. Every single instructor has gotten on my ass about that and told me to keep my eyes out the windscreen. I don't know if I just had shitty instructors or what, but there's that.

 

 

If your instructors tell you to look outside, it's because you're not looking at the gauges, you're STARING at them. Yes you don't think we can tell, we can tell. 

 

You use the gauges to verify your sight picture then fly your sight picture. For the F-14 you would find level then adjust the hud Horizon knob to level the horizon with the little airplane symbol. NOT the horizon out in the sky. 

[QuiGon]

18 hours ago, Victory205 said:

I should say that refueling in the sim is more difficult than in RL, once you got proficient there wasn’t much to actually plugging. Some of the night rendezvous got a little sporting...

 

The sim is mostly a control issue caused by differing controls, curves and screen response, which is dependent on each individual’s set up.

Even though the basket in the sim doesn't move around in the turbulences? That always seems pretty difficult to me, when watching real life videos.

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by QuiGon

[LanceCriminal86]

I think the Tomcat being heavily analog really nails down the need for headtracking or VR in DCS, because you need to be able to look at a few things all at the same time. I especially notice this on carrier approaches, I'm still pretty bad at getting the timings of the turns, altitude, and speed on point because I don't have a good consistent head tracker solution nor the horsepower for VR, but being able to monitor speed, altitude, and sink rate while rapidly looking over your shoulder to check where you are near the boat seems like an absolute must, and Hat switches just aren't cutting it.

[Gunslinger22]

53 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

I think the Tomcat being heavily analog really nails down the need for headtracking or VR in DCS, because you need to be able to look at a few things all at the same time. I especially notice this on carrier approaches, I'm still pretty bad at getting the timings of the turns, altitude, and speed on point because I don't have a good consistent head tracker solution nor the horsepower for VR, but being able to monitor speed, altitude, and sink rate while rapidly looking over your shoulder to check where you are near the boat seems like an absolute must, and Hat switches just aren't cutting it.

I must admit, as a VR user this is something I often forget. I find it so much easier to simply glance at the gauges out of my peripheral, like Victory mentioned, to know all I need. I actually find it easier than in the Hornet or Viper where I find myself getting sensor overloaded by the HUD shoving every last drop of information into such a small space. Whereas I find the Tomcats HUD to be perfect, it displays everything you need to know in each mode while giving you a pretty good Field of Regard out over the nose. If people already complain about the lack of vision on a monitor out the front of the Tomcat, I couldn't imagine they'd be much happier with the large combiner glass frame of the Kaiser and Sparrowhawk even further limiting their vision. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Gunslinger22

[Xeno426]

On 1/10/2021 at 12:53 PM, Naquaii said:

All arguments aside, like have been mentioned many times before, we do currently lack all the data we need to do a Sparrowhawk equipped F-14.

 

The thing is that the Sparrowhawk HUD wasn't a standalone upgrade, it very much depended on the newer navigation systems present in the upgraded F-14B(U), if the aircraft didn't have those (CDNU, EGI and FMC as examples) it still wouldn't be able to present much more on the HUD as that data was drawn from the new 1553 buses present with that upgrade and without them the data would be the same as the original HUD.

 

This means that if there ever were to be a project to introduce it it would be as part of an F-14B(U) containing these systems as well as the PTID and DFCS. So even if we did get a hold of all the data on the Sparrowhawk we'd still need to fill in a lot of blanks in regards to PTID functionality.

 

I did not know the F-14B(U) was a thing. Are there any sources you could name that discuss that upgrade?

[Southernbear]

On 1/10/2021 at 3:50 PM, Nealius said:

 

 

 

Which of these is level flight? 

 

I've been trying to fly off the horizon, as is commonly taught for VFR, for a decade and I can't because of what I demonstrated in the above two pictures. If the HUD were off, the horizon appears to be in the exact same location on the windscreen. Answer to the question "which is level:" 

  Reveal hidden contents

1: +1,000fpm climb at 350KIAS

2: Level at 250KIAS

 

 

What Victory is saying is correct, I mean why the hell would you use the HUD indicator in the first place when you know the F-14's seating position is very high over the nose which is going to make that indicator hard to be correct in the first place. Much like for example how the F-14 exhibits proverse yaw while it "looks" like the aircraft actually does Adverse Yaw, again, because of pilot seating position. I mean you have literally have a artificial horizon on the VDI for that exact reason which is huge and easy to understand. 

[Southernbear]

On 1/12/2021 at 3:55 AM, Victory205 said:

Bomb mode is easiest to set up and is appropriate behind a 280 knot KC135, but a couple of clicks of manual “AFT” was what most pilots did, just to get the wings off of the “Auto” schedule. Organic tanking was done at 250KIAS, so that technique worked well. You don’t want the wings moving, and getting the nose up slightly was more comfortable.

 

Behind a C130, maybe only one click aft, and you might hold the maneuvers slats in the retracted position depending upon your weight and what speed he was lumbering along at.

 

Never at 68. 

 

The KC10 was the easiest platform to take off of. The KC135 was the most challenging.

With getting them off the "Auto" mode using the manual AFT also disable the spoilers from operating? Because thats was my understanding as the "main" thing that makes it easier for new people to AAR. Stopping the wings from moving AND disabling the spoilers so they don't either add over correction for roll or cause drag that would slow you down.

 

I'm just wondering if the spoilers were much of an issue IRL or if New pilots just had to get through it because this is why for DCS anyway its been said to put them into Bomb mode because it achieves both.

[Alphabet_Ghost]

2021/1/12 AM7点40分,Victory205说:

I should say that refueling in the sim is more difficult than in RL, once you got proficient there wasn’t much to actually plugging. Some of the night rendezvous got a little sporting...

 

The sim is mostly a control issue caused by differing controls, curves and screen response, which is dependent on each individual’s set up.

by the way , question on DLC , i checked with natops and found three drifferent description for AAA-1 , AAAP-1 , AAAD-1(1997/2004) and your Spoilers_Flaps Tips

Before DLC can be engaged , for AFCS computers , only Pitch B and Yaw B computer segregations operational is required?

[Victory205]

13 minutes ago, Southernbear said:

With getting them off the "Auto" mode using the manual AFT also disable the spoilers from operating? Because thats was my understanding as the "main" thing that makes it easier for new people to AAR. Stopping the wings from moving AND disabling the spoilers so they don't either add over correction for roll or cause drag that would slow you down.

 

I'm just wondering if the spoilers were much of an issue IRL or if New pilots just had to get through it because this is why for DCS anyway its been said to put them into Bomb mode because it achieves both.

 

If the wings are swept far enough aft the spoilers will bias out, but the main reason was to keep the wings from moving with little velocity changes. If they were just on the edge, they may bump a few degrees, which shifted the aerodynamic center of lift and cause a pitch and trim change. It wasn’t that big of deal when you were tanking every flight on deployment. You got so good at it that you’d be upset if your probe touched the basket at all, and didn’t hit dead center on the coupling itself. DCS is orders of magnitude more difficult.

 

Same thing when we did formation aerobatics. Bomb mode was used to stop the wings from sweeping for the same reason. Minimizing pitch changes is also why Bomb mode was put in for, well, Bombing. 

 

Spoiler breakout does increase roll rates as the devices become active, but it becomes an afterthought. It’s the same thing in the airliners, where spoilers deploy at a few degrees of roll input, depending upon flap configuration on some jets, etc. Not a big deal at all. It’s all modeled in the sim, so you can see for yourself.

 

All of this may explain why the Blue Angels never seriously considered the F14 for a demo plane. They’d have to bolt all of these moving parts into a fixed position to keep the center of lift from moving all over the place while they were trying to fly formation. The thrust line and burner stages would have been a handful. It wasn’t a great formation airplane.

 

 

[Slant]

15 hours ago, Gunslinger22 said:

I must admit, as a VR user this is something I often forget. I find it so much easier to simply glance at the gauges out of my peripheral, like Victory mentioned, to know all I need. I actually find it easier than in the Hornet or Viper where I find myself getting sensor overloaded by the HUD shoving every last drop of information into such a small space. Whereas I find the Tomcats HUD to be perfect, it displays everything you need to know in each mode while giving you a pretty good Field of Regard out over the nose. If people already complain about the lack of vision on a monitor out the front of the Tomcat, I couldn't imagine they'd be much happier with the large combiner glass frame of the Kaiser and Sparrowhawk even further limiting their vision. 

 

 

I'm pretty indifferent to this topic, but I suspect that simmers tend to focus on HUD symbology a little too much. I found that life got a lot easier with those "clutterhuds" when you just looked at the world through the HUD and flew the plane (whatever plane, Hornet or Tomcat) that way, augmenting your information with the HUD when you need it. Flying the world instead of flying the HUD is what I call it in my head. I wonder how it is IRL, where 3D is more of a thing, but I can definitely tell that sometimes I tunnel on HUD symbology and don't really perceive what I'm looking at behind the symbology. I actively try to avoid that and now HUDs make more sense to me and I don't mind the clutter unless it's actually obstructing my object of interest, like sometimes the TCS dot in STT will obstruct the bandit I'm trying to intercept with... that's also the reason why I turn HUD symbology down to where it's really transparent.

 

I guess this is just me rambling on a side note that I always found interesting to think about. Open for discussion, certainly.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Slant

[Slant]

20 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Even though the basket in the sim doesn't move around in the turbulences? That always seems pretty difficult to me, when watching real life videos.

 

 

 

Tbh, I'm getting so bored with AAR in DCS, I'm almost wishing for the aerodynamics of AAR to be implemented to make it more interesting. But, we don't have the comparison and I can totally believe that having the seat of your pants telling you what the airframe is doing making things a lot easier. Also, unlike the flat screen that I use, IRL it's basically... right THERE. I feel there is a bit of a remoteness feeling for me, since I don't use VR. I can see how it would be easier... and let's not forget they got a lot of practice over Iraq from all I've heard. Poor guys, sitting in the cockpit for 8 hours or so... my ass is hurting after just 3 hours.

[FWind]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tPxX9Dtxeg