lunaticfringe

You have a former F-14 pilot in this thread telling you that they didn't do anything but fail to bring about world peace (and keep Sprey out of the mixing booth- but let's not go crazy now) in their absence, rather than a RIO. Bio's a great guy; I've talked to him. HB has talked to him. HB also has other SME staff- for both seats. I don't know about you, but I tend to trust/defer to the guys in the front seat on the front seat stuff, and the guys in the back seat (like Bio) on the back seat stuff. YMMV.

This is partially correct. In the event that the ACM cover is up and the AWG-9 has an STT acquired target prior to trigger down, the data dump/Doppler injection is normal, and the launch proceeds as standard. If the AWG-9 does not have an STT acquisition, the target Doppler is unknown, so the FCS dumps a simulated signal based on the RIO's set aspect switch and launches the missile listening to CW rather than Pulse/PD. The English bias, seeker directive, etc are all per standard; the only other real change is the lack of a computed range calculation. In other words, the missile can be less reliable with the ACM switch up, but it's based on your having a lock or not, not the switch itself.

Re: glove vanes: See the automatic deployment schedule of operation in the subsonic regime between M 0.2 and M 0.8 found in AAA-1. Note the CL Max line in AAA-1.1. Note the CL Max line in AAP-1.1 are the same as AAA-1.1 for the various configurations. And recognize the performance tables for AAP-1.1 are used also for the F-14D. Glove vanes: < 20 square feet of additional wing added so much lift to the equation against the already near 1100 square feet of lift between the wings, glove, and fuselage tunnel that they don't register a difference once deleted. They look cool. They reduce stability fractionally at high mach. And they are a statistical nonfactor everywhere in the equation for what can be quantified by the data at hand.

Using some very specific assumptions on sizing and a touch of descriptive geometry against Punk's original images, these are what I found as baseline numbers for my own such project. The table at top and the graphic at the bottom (which conforms to the NATOPS description of the throttle throw, including the off/idle gating) converts the circumference traveled of throw to degrees for more accurate spacing. The dimensions on Punk's original photographs appear to be 6" with "inward" stops pushing it below that. My rough estimate puts it at the 5.825, which makes it exactly an 80 degree throw at the 4.17 height "panel" height for the throttle circumference. That specific accuracy makes me think it's very close, as the angle can be more closely patterned than the dimension for fabrication of said form.

I would suspect the Cubesim panels are very close and could fit without much trouble.

Constructed scenario requiring player aircraft flying above 15,000' to issue a message inside a trigger zone. Would not work. Lowered altitude requirement to 10,000', still would not work. Removed the altitude condition, zone message trigger worked correctly. To attempt to isolate, I added an altitude requirement of 5,000' on a hunch; combined conditions worked rigger worked immediately on a mission start of 16,500'. See attached. Mission 1 starts at 18,000, flying into trigger zone with "5050" value for altitude condition. Message appears. Mission 2 starts at 15,700, flying into same trigger zone with "5050" value for altitude condition. Message does not appear. Can be proofed to be tied to incorrect units versus those selected in the Mission Editor in Mission 2 by flying fifteen seconds, then climbing above 16,300'. Bug Submission 2.mizBug Submission 1.miz

Not really. 9G is available at 3x the speed of a 1G stall; airplane that stalls in the low 90s will have enough lift on the wings to convert to 9G at less than 300 knots. Problem is then how fast you bleed versus how much the blowers are giving you while trying to pull up to Max CL- what you can instantaneously attain vs. what the airplane can give you in response, etc. Similarly, the level flight DPS attained is correct as well; 318 knots at an entry of 83.6 degrees bank angle (9.0G) is 30.601 degrees per second.

Realizing we were acquainted through on my moonlighting/hobby gig after the fact through a working group email chain. Expressed my exasperation as to how I was having trouble getting something so old and clearly worked through, and he piped up stating that he'd been the original declassifying reviewer for the exact materials I was looking for. Got me in contact with some folks on AF historical side who would conconcur with our mutual assessment on public importance, and that was that. Life can be funny like that sometimes.

640+ of the 713 built F-14s were, or started their lives, as As. It's not a point of negotiation that representing that number is less trivial than seat switching in MP. NAVGRID is fundamental to the back seat in the fleet air defense role. Everything you do is dependent on the pre-plotted positioning in that grid, because the other players have their own defined roles set in that same field in preparation for EMCON or jamming-heavy operations. That it's being used as a glorified bullseye isn't the fault of the function, but that it's meaning hasn't been effectively presented yet. So yeah- better to have it for actually simulating how the plane was used, than to jump back and forth in a multiplayer environment. Not saying it wouldn't be fun or nice to have, but priorities.

While I can't speak with absolute precision without seeing the full conversation chain, for "confidential" manuals the declassification schedule is normally ten years. At that point, a review is normally performed and the document is cleared, or gets another ten years tacked on. In this case, you put in a request on a document in the second window (2007-2017). After the second window, any question on ability to release generally gets picked up under one of the nine exemptions until it hits MDR eligible at 25 years; but, in this case, under 10 USC 130, all of the required parties could sign off and still have it be a "no". The fact that it's an exemption, and not maintained as confidential, does confirm that the materials are in fact unclassified- that is to say, someone within the DoD or a contractor under their auspices could review the manuals in part or whole without any redaction or need for individual clearance, similar to an unclassified -1 with the destruction control instructions on the cover, but they're not shipping it to outside parties (ie, the general public). FOIA can be an absolute treasure, or an absolute ____show, depending on what it is you're after. At one point, I had a chase for a particular report that had been fully declassified in the 90s, only to be reclassified five years later, get denied for unredacted release at 39 years- until I got the original USAF/DIA officer who declassified it all those years ago get involved to prepare the review request.

You put five different sounds together as "evidence" that a sound isn't realistic, when they don't sound alike in comparison to one another. That's not 2+2 = 4, that's 1+1+1+1+1 = 1. You're arguing against a former F-14 pilot up above using poorly recorded instances from outside the airframe that all sound different from one another. That's not ballbusting. Track replay is ED side.

Vector is used with a datalink-provided guidance directive that includes heading, altitude, and airspeed, and can be used in Cruise, A/A, or Landing visual modes. It turns the HDG and CRS knobs off (along with back seat heading alternation if memory serves) because it is the fleet telling you *exactly* where they want you, whether to run an intercept, shoot something specific, or to bring you back to the boat. Utility in DCS at this point is nil, because there's no way currently for a player AWACS to drive such a data message down to a player.

So just to be clear, you lead with a video that has the sound approaching the microphone from the barrel side- ergo, a wholly different position from that inside the cockpit, and with said sound coming at the recipient from a state of pure closure, rather than receding; Doppler shift being a thing with sound related to how it passes through a medium- air, versus air and through the airframe, each of which would give different harmonic properties. You then follow up with a video that has five different relative microphone positions in the first minute- all of which show substantially different tonal qualities based on position, speed of the firing platform, and firing speed mode of the cannon. That is, six different installations and recording positions, six different sounds, and not a single one of them from in inside the cockpit. But you're demanding "accuracy". To which I say- accuracy to which example?

Look at the year. Then look at the issues Grumman had on the fixed rate contract for F-14 construction for the initial production runs. This was pre-Iran deal; the firm was almost shuttered given their increased supply costs due to the onset of the energy crisis. They couldn't eat a loss on the airplane because they already *were* taking a loss on the airplane.

Raise the flaps.

1. Did you turn the oxygen on? 2. How much G were you pulling when the AWG-9 died in PAL?

Do you understand the difference between a high performance racing motor being placed on a flywheel dyno versus the power produced at the wheels with the drivetrain in the way? Similar concept, excepting the primary fact that a turbine produces more power the faster the aircraft it's in is moving. The baseline ratings of 28,200/20,800 per are on the trailer in a hush house with a fan blowing on them at essentially sea level, not at Mach .9 and 10k feet with much lower temperature air and far higher volume pushing through. What happens in flight is an increase in delivered power versus what happens on the ground. Baseline ratings are for comparative purposes stemming from a controlled environment. It makes comparative performance more easily quantified on paper- not at altitude and installed in the machine.

They're called "interlock switches". The pushbutton mechanisms are installed on a frame, which has a bar with hooks that slides through the body of each switch and is attached to a spring to keep them in tension. When a button is pressed, the hook for that specific switch is held, while the spring action of the bar releases the last pressed switch. In Grumman's custom implementation, the round center presses down on the switch through the white square that functions as an outer ring. The ring has a 45 degree slot down its side, through which passes a key which makes the rotation action. Five and six position interlock switches are fairly reasonable (in the realm of $6-10 on the 'bay as I've secured a few for this exact purpose), and the center/ring affair is eminently 3D printable.

There's a fundamental difference between real-time calculations based on control inputs, weight, speed, and air density versus limited frame captures separate from the physics taking place in the background. One has all of the data all the time, the other has only incremental portions of the resulting outcome gathered only so often. To state that the results are comparable just because there is math involved is a false comparison. Anyone who has watched Tacview race to catch up in frame calculations with excessive rolling compensation that doesn't remotely match what occured in sim has witnessed the difference. That's not dismissing Tacview as a valuable tool. It does, however, show that it has limitations as arbiter. You mention elsewhere that Frantz made a custom version for this very eventuality to catch over-G in real time: did it do so, or was the challenge of the excessive load event made after the fact?

Just a question: How was a rule surrounding G limit tied to a tool that interprets, rather than actively recording G- ie, Tacview, considered as arbiter for immediate challenge and removal from competition? It's grabbing coordinate positions and relative orientation, not actual G and speed, and doing so in a random frame fashion rather than with absolute time precision. A strong pull at or near corner recorded with short stamps but large AoA onset will almost invariably show a G excursion on a max pull. It's not a reliable method for elimination, and resolving this is something to consider for the future. Congratulations on the win for charity.

Dismissing anecdotes while asking for them. It's a position, I guess. And yes- G has been discussed here, at length.

The flaps, per a couple of Grumman engineers in various tomes throughout the years were rated to 280 knots, but the original NATOPS limits were left in place to in an attempt to alleviate wear, much like the 7.0G airframe "limit". Thus, the current limitations prior to failure are in line with reality.

Yes, full action. But I would ask- you're not trying to chase up to the return with the HCU when you see it in the sweep, are you? Because that's really the no-no. I would suggest if you're having difficulty in getting the lock but are in azimuth alignment, gently go forward and back on the stick to make sure the target hasn't drifted. In this instance, you kind of have to act like the vernier control yourself.

If you're losing a target in the canopy frame in the knife fight, you're trying to put your nose on too early. Depending on your zoom, the frame edge left and right is roughly 45 degrees, whereas at the top, because of the forward slope, is around 30 degrees. The edge of the HUD glass frame is about 10 degrees to the sides. If you're fighting a guy close in when offensive, you consciously don't pull to the HUD until you're looking at a receding planform view of his burner can and have acquisition- and in VSL HI, the AWG-9 is looking above the top mirror. Get him aligned, get him up above the mirror and a lock acknowledgement (Jester or a glance to see a solid diamond at the top of the frame), then evaluate range and go. If you're not trying to constantly pull into the frame, you don't lose him when it's time to put him there. It's when he makes the out of plane maneuver when you're pulling early that they get away from you.

MRL is *extremely* difficult to use in any sort of maneuvering situation, because you have to be absolute in your positioning as you're the one driving the antenna. It does work as of a couple builds back (was previewing to a friend), but don't expect much in crunch time given the difficulty in perfect alignment against a target.