Jump to content


ED Closed Beta Testers Team
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



Recent Profile Visitors

15703 profile views
  1. Grumman wasn't claiming; they were literally losing millions on every F-14 from the initial fixed price order based on the energy crisis from 1973 forward. The initial contracted buy covered multiple blocks across years, Navy wouldn't renegotiate, and it was ultimately the sale of airframes to Iran that kept them afloat.
  2. And we also know the fundamental root cause of that issue, too. But I don't see anybody barking up that tree.
  3. Yeah- what they need are another two cooks to join the first to stand over the lone FM pot, getting in each others way and stumbling over ingredients because you're impatient.
  4. The Hornet and Viper have had their discrepancies discussed in their subforums and in other venues. You want wailing and gnashing of teeth on those subjects, look there.
  5. You thought it came down to a couple of pylons that don't affect drag one iota; you also begin with the false premise that everything has been somehow nerfed with a patch previously, so in sum- your childish hyperbole isn't doing much to make your case for you. And I hate to tell you- as has been exhibited by others, repeatedly, the F-14, in both types, run as close to their subsonic EM charts as any other module in DCS, if not closer. That is- the model is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. It was fractionally ahead or behind the curves in prior patches, and remains so- down to single digit values in net Ps change in the regime you state you care the most about, irrespective of the comments of people who think they can magically ascertain other regions and substantiate nonexistent tests by extrapolation. Your inability to deliver isn't indicative of the FM or the module. Now, you can blame that on your own skill, the track record of other types having larger variances from their EMs (or simply being authored without them), or whatever you like to explain it. The fact of the matter is that you've got 13 posts since you opened your newest profile, and the point that 10 of them are in here just tossing pure unadulterated noise about factors that in no way deny you from being capable of winning guns only, give ready explanation as to why you can't.
  6. What you're being informed of is that those pylons didn't come off operationally, ever, and that there is no aerodynamic data points to begin to attempt to model the drag change because the test aircraft were always flown with them installed. So not only are you chasing an immaterial point, but for one that could never be presented in a fashion you think would apply.
  7. Again, define what constitutes "worked". Working IRST with a diminutive detection range with 50's technological background on a clear day for US based interceptors when compared against a radar with perhaps a 40 mile seems like a relative nicety. Now pair it with a platform detecting bombers out to 130+ nautical miles with a weapon to match, and add in the realities of naval ops. The -23 was hot, unreliable garbage, even for its time- even when it was comparatively better than those aforementioned systems on a perfect day. They were willing to remove them and fly no secondary sensor until the TCS matured and was available fleet wide.
  8. Have you considered switching to decaf?
  9. The problem is that it isn't on par content-wise. On release, the F-14 promised two free campaigns, scenarios for every map, LANTIRN, Jester, and four airframes- including full FM adjustments for a different set of engines. It dropped with a minimum of five instant action missions on every map. We're now at three official free campaigns for competition, because the South Atlantic mini-campaign was added on in a moment of inspiration. Multi-crew out of the box. Jester on release. And even the M won't give remotely the depth required to make up the difference. The F1 is a nice and useful module in the scope of DCS and fills in necessary holes. The promises made don't rise to the levels of the other $80+ tier modules, and don't match up to where those were on EA release. If the F-14 is going to be the standard folks point to, it's got a lot of work to do beyond the terms that have thus far been set.
  10. The F-15A and C did, in fact, come with them installed on their F100s originally. The USAF found them to be a maintenance issue, especially in Europe, and accepted the drag penalty induced by their removal. You can validate this by looking at line aircraft upon delivery back in the day, as well as the test aircraft, and then soon after having the covers gone- whether by maintenance after delivery, or gone from the factory. Conversely, you'll note their installation on 15As, Cs and Es of the IAF in many instances. The difference, while marginal, is considered worth the effort for some users and applications.
  11. The 7MH has 13 launch modes. The 7P has 20. Only three of these in either variant are accessible to the flight crew, and the only way to negate the loft profile in any of them is the ACM switch.
  12. Not only was that statement incorrect, TALD has been working properly on the F-14 again since the last patch, as noted in a number of topics. Go release a few and have fun.
  • Create New...