Dudikoff

According to this page, Block 90 vs from FY75, so I guess it's quite older than late '80s. http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/f14a/f14ab90.htm Tomcats made for Iran are listed between Blocks 85 and 90 here so presumably those made for Iran are roughly Block 90 standard? http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f14_2.html Unfortunately, there are no details on what was changed in the subsequent Blocks.

The ground track destination could be one of the waypoints as well, but yeah, I guess it's not the proper route following mode. I saw one of the earlier posts mention GT and route and I posted before checking it in the NATOPS myself.

But, since the F-14 does have an autopilot which can both hold course or even follow the route (if I understand correctly what GT is), is there really a Pilot AI as such or simply the AP is triggered once you switch to the backseat? If they really implement some sort of Pilot AI, I'd expect some basic commands would be available to the RIO to issue (altitude, speed setting, waypoint switch, perhaps even some escort target, etc.).

Open a support ticket and try. I gave away my Hawk key more than a year ago this way.

I can see these basic modes (hold and gt) being essential for SP as well when you want to work the radar from the back seat (sorry, Jester).

Thanks, Mr. Nance is always interesting to listen to.

And your point is what exactly?

Didn't read that, but I don't think the Iranian F-14A's are what the OP had in mind.

It should be mentioned that Constant Peg (at that time, at least) didn't have a MiG-23ML variant which was lighter with a stronger engine and thus somewhat more maneuverable than the older MS/MF export models which they tested presumably. Plus, the MLD variant introduced some extra changes to improve maneuvering capabilities and controllability at higher AoA (vortex generators, a new stronger wingbox and a 33 degree wing-sweep position, flight control limiter, etc.). So, those turn rate numbers were presumably somewhat increased, but I don't have any numbers at hand apart from those provided by a quick google search and already posted for the ML and this analysis of a Soviet era document. http://www.xairforces.net/analyses/mig-23.html

What different chin pods? Late A's (which HB are making) and B's have the same one with the TCS pod as you can see from the image.

Edit: completely misplaced the date of the MiG-23 incident with the Su-22 one, never mind. I do remember reading at several places that the shot down variant was a MiG-23MS, not sure if that was correct.

Severe buffeting, non-friendly HUD wanna-be, snarly RIO.. Plus the quirky engines of the A model.. What's not to love.. ;) Can't wait to see some backseat stuff in action as though it's great having Jester as it is on those long and lonely flights, I'd hate to let him do all the fun stuff *all* of the time.

It does as an add-on adapter, it doesn't if it replaces the VKB base mount in the bottom of the stick (e.g. like MCG-TM will have). Sure, it complicates matters somewhat, but how often do you need to flash a firmware in the grip? There is a limited number of buttons and axes there, what needs to change exactly? And how would the MCG-TM get these updates anyway? The main thing that might need flashing is the controller in the adapter to support new grips perhaps and that could probably be avoided with a good initial design. Such an adapter would be useful even for your MCG-TM grip as it is loses on the axes functionality. And it becomes way more practical in the future if you decide to make additional grips. Sure, that's your choice. But, given the number of TM bases on that poll (compared to e.g. VKB bases), it seems like the wrong business choice. As a TM base user, I prefer their software to what VKB offers at the moment and I don't really consider throwing it all away anytime soon to switch to another even more expensive system. I might get the MCG-TM grip just to have the option of a Russian stick design, but any other grips which have axes (like the proposed F-14), probably not as losing those specific axes kinda makes the specific airframe grips functionally pointless. .

This is actually a great idea, but IMHO it would make more sense if all the buttons were handled by the WH base (so that TM programming software could still be used) and all the added stick axes would be handled by a separate controller board in the adapter which would connect to the USB port separately and be recognized as a separate device. That way, all the grips VKB makes could be used on TM (and Virpil I guess) bases without a need for a separate line (like the announced MCG-TM). Not sure if a direct plug-in adapter would be feasible (due to extra height and the forces exerted on it), but I guess the grip could be opened and an adapter inserted instead of the VKB connector into the base.

I asked the same thing when it was available for pre-order, but apparently the module was far from being feature complete for that. Usually updating the manual doesn't get a high priority before the module is in releasable state, so I wouldn't get my hopes up for an early manual release. IIRC, Cobra was even quite explicit in not expecting it to be released before the module itself.

I'm not that picky, so I'd take any (and all) of these (F-111E/F, Tornado IDS, Su-24M)..

From today's weekend news post: "Next week will also see the release of the updated P-51D-25-NA and P-51D-30-NA Mustang, the C-101EB with AFM and C-101CC, and new cockpits for the Bf-109 K-4 and Fw 190 D-9. Exciting times!"

Hmm, I'm sure it's possible to do that for quite awhile as I've used that since I first flew the hornet some months ago.

That would be the latest XPG8200 drive with 3D TLC NAND, but this time with a very good controller (as the older models don't quite compare in performance). But, even with that surprisingly solid budget model, I'd like to see a practical test showing this 'huge increase in loading times compared to latest-spec SATA drives'?

Agreed, I expected some narrated video showcasing the cockpit and startup and so on. It was rather long while effectively not really showing that much more information than was seen from some cockpit shots given in the trailers.

You have to run the profile in Target after loading it and then you'll get the TM Virtual Device instead of the separate Warthog Joystick & Throttle.

Of course the R-27R/RE supports LOAL (no SEEKER lock necessary at launch), otherwise their range would make no sense since their seeker could only lock on at, I don't know, 20 km, depending on the target size. But, as I said, it does require a RADAR lock by its launching platform to determine exact range and for the WCS to set up the missile parameters and tune the seeker to the guidance channel, I guess. So, this last minute lock on that you're mentioning is not possible.

I actually meant to say that it can be launched without a missile seeker lock (LOAL). The radar lock would be required to provide the initial launch parameters to the missile (English Bias, initial waypoint, etc.). Didn't really try to replicate launching the R-27R with the IOS lock, there are probably many WCS simplifications currently compared to the RL (and I'd have to check the RL manual first). But, in theory, when you pull the trigger with a radar missile selected in TP mode (if this is supported by RL WCS, of course), the WCS might attempt to create a radar lock by slaving the radar to the IRST lock and if a lock is established (RL appears on the HUD or something), a missile could then be launched. It would take some seconds for all this to happen, though.

How exactly would the IRST be interconnected with anything else? I didn't really check the NATOPS for the F-14D regarding this, but I imagine there might be a button on the MFD to select the IRST sensor picture (kind of like the Maverick one) and you'd implement it as having no function or don't show it at all. What other systems would be affected by this? On that often shown diagram of various chin pod configurations, one of them is showing the IRST window blanked off with the comment 'temporarily' (I presume for maintenance or if the system wasn't ready from the start of the operational service, perhaps), so it might be a realistic option.

If no available data on that IRST was a problem, they could just leave it off (like, removed for maintenance), worst case. Regarding the radar, well, the AN/APG-73 in the Hornet is still in use and we have the fully-fledged module with it. Plus, the AN/APG-71 didn't have the ground mapping modes support integrated, so it shouldn't be that difficult to simulate its A2A modes.