SgtPappy

So I have had this discussion a few times with the amazing guys here and on Reddit. Static, SL thrust at full burner for the TF30-P-414A (all of them really) is ~20,840 - 20,900 lbf of thrust. Installed, static SL thrust is ~17,077 lbf of thrust. I am not to sure if it really is apples to oranges - they are both turbofan engines installed in the same aircraft - but the installed thrust of the F110-GE-400 I think was only 23,400 lbf or so while the uninstalled thrust was closer to 28,000 lbf. I take these numbers with a generous ±100 lbf or so but you get the idea. Indeed, the ram air effect starts to give more thrust at supersonic speeds, and I believe it was Okie that ballparked it around 28,000 lbf past Mach 1 at lower altitudes. I unfortunately do not have the plots to show these figures.

I know we're getting a little off -topic but I just have to chime in - I'm waiting so patiently for the F-4E (for which I am losing hope) and then the Vietnam War community will have so much fun and reason to fly that era of planes :)

Thank you IronMike, and as always, fantastic work on the best module I own!!!

I was experiencing a few crashes one night (which I think was Windows since many programs were crashing) so I updated my computer and restarted. One of my crashes happened while I was RIO for a friend. When I restarted and joined his plane, none of my bindings worked. Not even the keyboard. Yet the controls would work for everything not F-14 related. Views zoom in, other aircraft controls and my F-15 controls were all functioning. Not sure what happens but it seems to be fixed when my friend respawns. Furthermore, the sortie is problematic for both of us because Jester tends to not respond during this crash. Is there anything that can be done or is it a DCS code issue? Thank you!

I don't mean to be rude, but I legitimately wonder why when people do not like something, they go to a convention of people who like something and then complain or have the need to state how much they don't like said thing. I wouldn't go to a soccer match and ask everyone why they love soccer so much and I find it boring. If you're not going to contribute, you really don't have to say anything.

Thanks Karon! I have the Thrustmaster T16000M HOTAS. Would the software that came with this setup be able to do what you mentioned?

Thanks Spiceman. All the enemy missiles I saw on DL were AMRAAMs as only REDFOR had the F-14s which we were flying. It's not impossible to believe that these, as well as bombs could actually be picked up by AWACS, but it is pretty mind-blowing to me!

I could not find any specific threads for this but was wondering if the RIO cockpit rotary knobs have their own CW/CCW binds. I am having an absolute blast being a RIO! But having a separate keybind for each knob when you could just have two keys is quite inconvenient. Is this being looked at in any build? Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback guys! For the most part, we will launch at 30-40 nm but the 20 nm shot is the minimum range we would do all I mentioned above. One of the main reasons we find shots under 30 nm works in this game is 1) the missile has lots of energy by the time it reaches the target and 2) lots of people use terrain masking and it starts becoming easier for the missile to hit the ground. But to your point, I think we are starting to practise more being patient by firing at around 30 nm and if the missile on the TID does not seem to be tracking, we turn to gimbals in preparation to turn cold and try again later. Another question I have is how realistic is the missiles showing up on radar/datalink? I always thought our AIM-54s showed up because they might be communicating with the AWG-9 but I am often seeing enemy missiles. Is this the radar actually picking them up? Is it really possible for AWACs to pick up such a small RCS and show them on datalink?

I would like feedback on my strategy with my pilot. I wonder if we are we doing anything wrong: What my pilot and I have been doing is we will try to be co-alt or slightly under the bandit (at greater than 20 miles) and I will lock on TWS while keeping track of other targets while in TWS. This has saved us numerours times when another datalink or radar contact pops up closer than the bandit we're focusing on. We will only fire on up to two targets at most if necessary just to keep one bandit off our backs while focusing on one target. If we can, we will close on the one primary target and then PD-STT him, put him in the TCS and continue until we see the explosion or the missile timer expire with no kill. I find this is an optimal combination of stealth (they do not know we launched a missile but I am not sure if non-F-14 aircraft can see missiles on their datalink/radar as we do), and the reliable PD-STT after makes the missile likelier to hit while giving us TCS. I've tried using TCS independently but it does not seem to lock well at long range without the radar. For anything less than or equal to 20 nm, I will just use PD-STT right away, and specifically at les than 15 miles, it's all pilot with PAL/AUTO ACQ modes.

So I am still having an issue, at least in MP, that when my pilot loads up 4x AIM-7s and 4x AIM-9s on the gloves, I still see the AIM-54 pylons with the AIM-7s clipping through. My pilot does not see the pylons. Note that I usually play as this pilot's RIO. Then if he changes back to AIM-54s, the pylons disappear and the AIM-54s are left floating. I will see if I can post some pictures tonight after work.

It is very likely that they are not even remotely accurate, especially since they have simple flight models.

Yes, as mentioned in other threads, we are the testers for the F-14B and I am so happy to be able to do so for Heatblur. Great work, and I can;t say how much I enjoy this aircraft! Can't wait for the F-14A!

Perhaps you could! I assume those who could not before have no trouble now

I like to carry an AIM-54 and an AIM-9 on each glove and 4x AIM-7s in the tunnel. It's a bitch to dogfight with if you do not use your Phoenix rounds before the merge, but once they are gone, it's a lot less drag and weight since the massive pylons will not be there. Was this ever a real loadout?

The 20,900 lbf quoted above for the TF30-P-414A is the uninstalled, static SL thrust. Installed, it produces ~17,080 lbf at static, SL conditions. At Ma = 0.9, the TF30 will generate about 28,000 lbf installed, as I have been told. The 23,400 lbf quoted above is the installed thrust of the F110-GE-400 at static, SL conditions. Uninstalled, SL static thrust is somewhere closer to 28,200 lbf. So a quick summary is: Static, SL, installed thrust: TF30-P-414A ~= 17,077 lbf (per NATOPS) F110-GE-400 ~= 23,400 lbf SL, Mach 0.9, installed thrust: TF30-P-414A ~= 28,000 lbf F110-GE-400 ~= 30,200 lbf

I thought that too! But it is not the dry thrust of the TF30. I can't send the link because I am at work now but this F-14 pilots specifically states in A/B (search on youtube: "F-14 Tomcat at the Wings of Eagles Airshow 1997", go to 2:20). Finally if you manage to find the F-14A manual from 2005 or 2006 (can't remember, nor am I allowed to link it here), it definitely states 17,077 lbf of thrust per engine in burner and 10,000 something lbs in MIL. I have yet to read more. Maybe the manual also says somewhere in there as to why. No luck so far. Also this website - though admittedly is not a source - is consistent with the statement: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-specification.htm

So I was doing some research and I found out that at least in the 1990's that the USN was either trimming their engines VERY low to the point that the TF30-P-414A was only producing a measley 17,077 lbf of thrust at MAX A/B or that the TF30-P-414A was actually that low on thrust. Other sources on the internet (including a study by the USN on engines for the F-14) state that the engine produces the same 20,900 lb of thrust as the earlier TF30s. Wish I could post it but it's from the 80's. Therefore, I don't know if anyone would actually want a 1990's F-14A if the engine power is truly that low. That said, does anyone know if that version of the TF30 was actually that underpowered or did the USN simply trim them down after the Cold War to keep them alive longer? I imagine the latter because that is lower than an F-4 Phantom's engines in thrust! :lol:

I can see both positions on this topic and how we always get a little heated because we're all nerds! And even though I do agree with your assessments, I do not think Hummingbird explicitly stated anyone was lying, but rather implied that the assertion by the Eagle pilot did not line up with the data. Hummingbird and I are quite academic/engineer-oriented when it comes to data and data does not lie, so we often forget to look at other things when we see nice graphs :) But as you also mentioned Steve, most planes in service aren't brand new with shiny engines and therefore do not fit the data well always.

Do you mean that if you were just puttering about at lower than MIL power, the engine could randomly stall? Even if you didn't touch the power, the engine could just stall or would you have to pull AoA? What if you level out, change power and then pull AoA before the RPM stabilized at the power setting you requested? Would that cause a stall? Sounds like it took lots of skill and luck to be proficient in an F-14A.

Wow awesome info! I have never seen that newspaper clipping before.

I don't think he's necessarily wrong, or a bad pilot - but if he got beat, at the end of the day, he was facing a better pilot. The F-14A and moreso F-14B/D are probably very, very close in performance to the likes of the F-14A/C, F-16C B.30/B.50, F/A-18 and the small differences can give huge impressions during a knife fight!

In real life, the AWG-9 has to support the missile until a certain distance, then the AWG-9 commands the AIM-54 to turn on its terminal guidance seeker head after which point the F-14 can turn cold/go nose cold. This is one big limitation that DCS cannot simulate apparently due to the current engine.

Do we have any local F-14 crew members who can comment more on the RWR systems? I wonder if the Gulf of Sidra incident F-14's could detect the MiG-23 radars.

Yes, that could certainly be in an issue. And I would not blame the system or its designers for this since newer SAMs had to be programmed in and could not be as easily added to the system database as easily as I would presume it was by the time of the Gulf War. It would still be nice to hear what other limitations/capabilities a RIO would have when concerning the RWR. Perhaps I will have to wait for the F-14A! This is how I understood it for the F-14's as well. Rudimentary indeed - which is why I have doubts about the RWR design.