Golo

I got A to just over M2.2 at shallow descent from about 45k to 38k. AIM-7s at stations 4, 5 otherwise clean. Im sure it would go faster but I was getting to bingo as I was passing 38k. That was few moths ago, I might just try again now.

Yup its a bug ,already reported at least twice.

Using flaps lever, its the AUX flaps that are either up (less or at 5° flaps lever deflection) or down (more than 5° flaps lever deflection). MAIN flaps can be set to any position in between up/down corresponding to flaps lever position.

One small note, you were pointing at selector switch on Launch Bar Abort Panel instead of Feed switch when talking about fuel feed. Fuel feed switch is located above refuel probe ext/ret switch and right of the control surface indicators display (both are guarded). Just pointing that out as not to confuse those two.

There is nothing in F-14 NATOPS (that I can find) that suggest WOW has anything to do with DLC. It should retract with throttles at mil or above both in the air and on the ground.

Yes

Worked OK for me as far as I can tell by in cockpit clock. Note that for 4 min 360° turn you have to have only one width of the indicator deflection, as stated in NATOPS manual.

I would consider ext. and wing tanks separate (excluded) system in regards to fuel balancing. I dont think there is a way to get fuel into them except from refueling. As for fuel balancing there are, FWD/RIGHT - forward fuselage tanks (fuel cells 1, 2) and right box beam tank (fuel cell 4), AFT/LEFT - aft fuselage tanks (fuel cells 5, 6, 7, 8) and left box beam tank (fuel cell 3). All fuel balancing is done between those tanks, so its mostly shifting fuselage fuel fwd or aft. Lateral imbalance in this case is really not a thing unless there would be a failure to extract fuel from a one wing tank.

That is not quite correct, there is a transfer. Read "fuel quantity balancing" section of the F-14 NATOPS manuals.

Tested in A with same results.

The moment you flip autopilot engage switch to engage you are in attitude hold mode of the autopilot (best done when you are level and trimmed), then you can set whatever autopilot mode switches you want and press AP ref button to engage the autopilot modes. Note that attitude hold mode does not require AP ref press to engage, other modes do.

Its possible because you have not listed any priorities, so all priorities we can see is what you show to us, and that is so far only ready room. And I can tell you in my opinion it should be last thing ED should be concerned about. Priorities should be what @MARLAN_and @BarTzipointed out and more, You know stuff that actually matters for aircraft operation from carrier. Now, if you are in fact working on those features that is great, but would it be so hard to actually let us know you work on it?

I would say it depends on your philosophy, one might say its good that it take more than designed for safety and all. Other might say the wing was unnecessarily overbuilt (witch has it drawbacks like added weight, cost, and loss of performance), and it would be better if it failed at (or just couple % after) the ultimate load. Im not sure what is better to be honest, they are both valid points. ED opted to have wings break at ultimate load, but I dont see anything wrong with that really, and certainly no bugs with structure limit loads that I could find on my end.

I can tell you from my personal experience, I have been to aeronautical test lab twice when they did wing tests to destruction. What happened past ultimate load limit (120ish % of the ultimate load as I remember) was that right aft (iirc) beam flange failed close to the wing root. No other component failed as far as I could tell, so yes it was the weakest structure in the wing. Merry Christmas to you as well.

Actually no, what you think of as strongest wing structure is actually the weakest one and would probably cause catastrophic event if it failed. Like a front or rear main beam, any other structure in that wing is designed at least to the same limit, and than its tested. If anything breaks before that beam fails ultimate load of 11g (or the beam itself before 11g) its a failed design. And such structures are designed as safe-life, not fail-safe principles. Fail-safe for example in hydraulic system mean if one of your hydraulic pump fails there is another one to back it up. Safe life is such that the component or a structure can not fail during its lifetime, if its operated within specified operational envelope, because there isnt anything to back it up (where as fail-safe systems can fail even if operated within specified limits). That is so, you have limit load for a reason, below this limit there is no permanent deformations and the wing would serve its whole service life just fine. If you exceed this limit I assure you the wing would be subject to inspections and very likely will have shortened service life or even replaced (depending on how overstressed it was). Opposite can be true too actually if the wing was operated within limits its whole life, its life can be extended further (very common in gliders)

Like this? Edit: I overstressed it past 10g and wing finally snapped (not shown in track), I still dont see anything wrong on my end with wing structure limits. F()-5 wing test 2.trk

@=475FG= Dawger I just tested it for myself and your claims are BS. I was able to do full spring stop rolls under G and my wing were still attached after several tests. Ive tested pull out full stop spring rolls from over 450kias at 5-7g with no problems. I was obviously over limit g doing that, I even had it pegged at 10 after I was done and my wings were still OK. You must be doing something way worse with your F-5 or have some fails in DCS files. Track attached. F-5 wing test.trk

If it sustained structural failure of trailing edge spar at limit load (which is 7.33g) its actually pretty bad, requiring redesign as they say. You can see from it that the wing structure is not as strong as you might think.

That control overlay is toggable with RCtrl + Enter iirc.

@Spurts Not sure you will be able to see this since I run some mods but you can try Trim test.trk Edit: Actually scratch that, you can not watch it, because it goes stupid right after takeoff even if its just 2MB of data (fkng EDs tracks) Suffice to say that I did test it like you full nose up trim on take off then full nose down and climb to 36k ft and level acceleration past M2, and I did not experience any weird nose up tendencies (less back stick required but that is normal).

How is your track file too big? Trk is usually in kB, must be hell of a mission. And your write up is perfectly consistent with how trim works if I understand it correctly. If you trim full nose up on take off, it will result in uncontrollable pitch up (due to limited fwd stick authority, that is just the stick/trim implementation now). Next you went full nose down trim, that will stop the pitch up, but will need aft stick to control which is what you did (and is fine since controlability is not symmetrical, its biased to for nose up, you have more stick authority there). Then you climbed to 36k ft and leveled off still with an aft stick, and accelerated. Acceleration will result in speed increase and higher force on h-stabs resulting in a need to ease aft stick you were holding to maintain level fight, or you would climb (track would be nice here to know what your stick position was). Im not exactly sure what you mean by zero fwd pressure here, if just easing aft stick from what you were holding thats fine. Next you say you were at 49k ft M2 hands of stick and 4 nose up trim with 6k fpm climb, sounds about right. At M2 slightest pitch deviation will result in thousands of FMP vertical speeds. Then you said you trimmed full nose down at M2.2, well your nose is gonna go down here, thats not surprising is it? Of course you need aft stick to hold level flight. Im not seeing anything out of ordinary really, maybe except that part that you said zero forward pressure (with full nose down trim!) at M1.9 36k ft will result in climb, I dont exactly know what you mean by that (track would be nice for that one).

You must be doing something wrong, I just tested it at high speed and its working just fine. F-14B from take off (0 trim) full mil 10-15° nose up, M0,7ish to 25k ft, then burner and nose down about 10° to accelerate to M1.5ish then climb 5-10° nose up to 40k ft at that point I was at M1.8-1.9 and I pitched little down to accelerate to M2 that was roughly at 38k ft. At no point in that whole exercise I had problems with controlability or trim issues, My trim ranged from 0 to 6ish nose up. If you test it still have problems link me your track Ill take a look at it.

You would need non linear stick/trim implementation, such is in F-5. In current implementation if you trim aft/fwd to certain value you will not have full range of stick motion available in opposite direction. At least last time I checked. That is what may cause your problems. With that said I have not noticed anything unusual at high speeds, I can control the aircraft/trim it out just fine.

Make sure you are not in DM/DG modes, and you have jettison switch in OFF position.

Please get help. https://www.mentalhealth.gov/get-help/immediate-help