lunaticfringe

He does IFF himself. It just takes him a bit. He's also unable to lock targets provided by DL if he's currently using the AWG-9 in a different area than the DL target for search (altitude/azimuth). If the IFF carat is above the target, he'll lock it on the "enemy" call. If it's below and he's scoped in the area, he'll use the "target ahead" call. If he says he can't, have him revert to auto to clear out any prior instructions you gave him.

Because they had the AIM-7F that would already outrange anything in opposition. The AIM-54A was evaluated as more capable against fighter targets than any other air to air missile in testing; at $1 million per round, however, and as the insurance policy for the fleet against LRA attack, deference was paid to the Sparrow. When the Soviets became able to match the F and M in range performance in the mid-80s, then came the shift.

F14AAA-1.1 and F14AAP-1.1 don't concern themselves with whether or not your improperly conceived testing arrangement agrees with them.

That's the thing- the actual EM performance charts (rather than uninstalled comparative tables) don't agree with your assessment. You want to see the subsonic difference in climb performance, you run the climb tables. They're clear as day if you look; but you don't get to put the airplane with superior supersonic performance in a supersonic run, then call BS when the aircraft with lower supersonic performance had to play catch up.

This is not how Rate of Climb or comparative climb performance is tested. Two aircraft beginning at the same airspeed are going to have the same immediate rate of climb, and the one with the higher Ps (in this instance, being the A) is going to start walking. At that point, it's a shape drag comparison; the F-14A and F-14B are within fractions of a percent with respect to comparable induced drag.

Thank you!

No, there are just millions of hands of varying sizes, thicknesses, palm widths, finger lengths, etc. This is a machine built to one specific set of guidelines, with the flight controls made to a given standard by a number of suppliers depending on the year of the contract, and all of them conform to that original baseline. The hands that held it, didn't. While the basic arrangement of the hand for all users apply (save for one), the grip plays to the mean. Everyone else on the high and low end would need to make small or large enough adjustments that, at the exercise, you'd likely say they were holding it "wrong", because they're a bit higher, lower, or rotated one way or another around the length of the column. On a similar line of standardized weapon arrangements to the mean, if human grips and individual comfort weren't different, Magpul, Hogue, and a hundred other firms wouldn't exist. But if you can't change the weapon, you change your grasp. With the right hand. *pulls handle*

Are you transitioning from touch and gos to pulling 6.5-9.0G in basic flight instruction? Because that environment is going to have a wholly different set of grip and feel requirements versus pattern work and two-ship formation flying. A person is going to change how they grip to match the circumstances. Guy climbed into a plane to demonstrate the controls, isn't strapped in, and thrashed the stick a bit, with his paw in his reflex position to throw it about- there's nothing to be inferred about how he handles it in delicate moments. This same line of conversation was had when the TM F/A-18 grip dropped, because it's "uncomfortable" to get the pinky paddle with your grip choked up to work the weapon block. It's that way for a reason, and those controls aren't going to all be accessible to every right hand all the time in all circumstances- the human body isn't made that way across the line of production.

Minor question about moving outboard into the AB range for a project I'm working on: was there a tangible feel or resistance on the handles when passing through the individual AB zones?

I guess this is the new rivet counting...? Across the thousands of people qualified to fly the F-14 in two services, who meet the weight and height requirements/limits of said services to get the ride, you're going to have a wide disparity of hand sizes. Some might be an absolute match, where their opposable thumb can rotate around the weapon selector and go up to the trim, underneath, hit the selector, but then have to rotate their palm to key the pickle. Others are going to have to grip down a half inch or more to comfortably manipulate the trim while performing basic cruise, station keeping, and AAR work. Every single one of them found the subconscious routine that worked for them, making the shift up, down, or around to do what needed to be done. You likely already have as well, but see a video and wonder if you're missing something that your own physiology can't match. It didn't much match up 1:1 for anybody else, either. Just fly the plane, my man.

Creason is a man of focus. Commitment. And sheer f***ing will.

Couldn't tell you why.

The relative illumination and WB of those two images aren't remotely comparable. If you look closely, the HDG BRT in the video image is roughly the same brightness as the scales; the same is observed in the DCS image. It's the rest of the reflected light that isn't the same.

Primarily because the ramps weren't reprogrammed to match the flow properties of the F110.

Sounds like it was.

Guess what cooling those Sidewinders used by default. And the E-2 Sparrow isn't compatible with the AWG-9 out of the box. Over time, the ability to get replacement hardware through clandestine means made some of these stocks viable. It wasn't anywhere remotely turnkey.

Just reload the old profile for each controller.

Put this in the F/A-18C bugs forum then. Having it here doesn't get the correct devs eyes on, and precludes a chance to get them fixing repair for all modules (since it's a base DCS issue).

IronMike said as much. They're discussing implementation. How it will come remains to be seen. Free to those who own both, just free, a minor stipend, it'll come. Just relax and let's see how that discussion goes.

In this case, yes. The only F-14s that received the software compatibility were the Ds, and we don't have those in DCS. Everything that is eligible as an F-14 payload has the data to match available; the 120 doesn't. If it were a matter of having the basic software information for how any additional information was presented to the crew, and DCS having the D model, you're now in the realm of a viable doomsday scenario where it's down to a squadron running off with spare Hornet LAUs for the tunnel recesses and going to work. Neither piece of that puzzle is in place, meaning the exercise is moot.

It's not direct control. Not remotely. He still selects the wrong thing from time to time depending on relative position of the aircraft and what is being looked at. Instead of having him get jammed up when he's wrong, I can nudge him in a real time feedback loop, just like I would speak to him- "little left, little more, up a touch- there", rather than playing ring around the menu rose repeatedly, in a far slower, and thus less realistic, fashion. "Jester, move it a bit..." with an additional layer or two of instruction with the menu isn't any more "realistic" than DHC or QEyes; in fact, it's even less so. You saw the item of interest, and are talking him on in quick increments or specific statements, not bobbing and weaving your head like a boxer. At heart, this is the clicky cockpit v. keybind argument of twenty years ago. That isn't to say the Jester menu isn't great for what it does, because it is. But adding more on top of it needlessly doesn't get any simulation value out of the exercise and degrades the end representation of what is being modeled. Front seaters don't put their eyes on a thing and quickly talk their WSO on with terse instruction; they go through a series of repetitive head-controlled menus, because the cognitives between eyeball point tracking and putting relative locations into words is gamey.

It is entirely accurate. Grumman was working on the 303 design set as a conceptual replacement for the Phantom while the F-111B was under development, and they knew the design that became the Tomcat could carry the AWG-9 before the F-111B program was canceled. While the DoD accepted bids from other firms for the VFX program, Grumman was already on the inside track and closest to being able to produce because they'd had it on the table already due to Navy's resistance to the F-111 at being able to do its job, or anything else.

No, it wasn't. Don't take my word for it- take the formerly classified internal Grumman memo to the CNO and Congress. Fleet air defense was secondary; it was always a fighter. Which leaves me to ask- what's wrong with your ACM technique if you can't beat a fighter that moonlights as a bus herder? Balance arguments are for Counter-Strike, son- not here.

Just wanted to take a moment to let folks know that the Bourns PTA3043-2010CPB103 slide potentiometer is a suitable replacement for those uninterested in coming up with a modified arrangement on the SFS Throttles. Their 30mm travel and case size are a proper match for the originals. They are low height models, but the clamping force of the original brackets hold them well, and any play in the future could be solved by fabricating/3D printing a small spacer. They also have the correct height tab to utilize the original ball carriers that insert into the throttle arms without modification/clipping.

Quoted for truth.