lunaticfringe

I've thought about this subject quite a bit over time and conversations with a lot of pilots who were in the F-14 before, during, and after his tenure in the type. One of the points I've seen come up on a couple of occasions is the flat spin recovery method and it's lack of distribution to the fleet. First, understand- nobody believes it's BS. The aero presumably works out. Yet, depending on who you talk to, some believe that it was a mistake not to get the money for the confirmation testing, and then distribute it through NATOPS. The others believe it was unnecessary, given the nature of techniques permissible in the F-14 that preclude going beyond the edges in the envelope that would induce it- that it wasn't necessary to get there to kill a hot bandit. And both types of comments stem from people that have gone up against all sorts of machines in DACT with the F-14A and won, and pretty much across time periods for service. Taking everything in, and admittedly never having met Hoser (only spoken to him online on a couple of occasions), that his flying style in a Fate and a Tomcat is something akin to a force of nature. Does it win? Hell yes. Does it use everything the pilot and machine can give? Sure. In the most effective way? Debatable- especially if you stuck Heater, Snort, Frosty, and a number of other well regarded players in the same room and let them go at it. Broadsword vs. longsword versus epee- every one of them is a sword, and every one of them will kill you, but each is used differently. You can't undersweep in manual override, only oversweep.

Yeah you have. I gave them to you before I posted them here. :P

The pilot can fire everything.

Do you know what a "forward firing weapon" is? Pilot had ability to fire anything on the aircraft. The only thing the trigger didn't fire was bombs. RIO only had access to launch AIM-7 and AIM-54.

Which is why you stick an ECA or mount LAU-138s on there for your Sidewinders and chaff everything to oblivion, and get back the second bucket.

Yeah, it's been a horrible five years. Also, the blog wasn't taken down. The URL is paid for, but no one in the family knew his passwords, so the hosting died. A number of us tried to get the hosting service to accept payment as a donation without access, but they refused. The Naval Institute Press is still interested in his book, so there may be one more round in the chamber. There have been a lot of tributes over time, over and above the tail at Fallon, between challenge coins, a scholarship, various memorials, and the like. Personally, I authored a simulation training extension named after him. And about a month back, a commissioned print in his honor based on one of his writings was delivered to the Fallon O-Club, and the base XO used to fly with him so it'll find a place of distinction. In other, more happy news, Lex's co-blogger Whisper had his change of command at sea to become CO of VFA-34 last week, so the spirit lives on.

Depends, I think, on the construction of the scenario, and if we have a minimum of DI variant functionality. The trick is what TARPS will be permitted to trigger. If permitted to simulate a trigger representing the transmission capability back to the E-2, or the ship with CD, you've now got a potential for a scripted strike becoming available in close to real time. By the time a TARPS bird is in the overhead, Hornets are being readied and launched to go kill what the player found- that's a pretty fun reward in and of itself for a job well done. Expanding, if the trigger permits an update to be sent out to aircraft- even players already in the air, for something akin to an on the spot run at an HVA (Tomcats found evidence of movement of tactical nukes or a particular member of the opposing military regime), that dynamic offers a lot of interesting things to do.

You're pointing at something that they already admitted, in this very thread before you brought it up, is a known issue, and dictating that you won't spend $60 on their product- not if they don't correct it, but if they don't add extra work to appease you, even though you don't have actual evidence showing the correction they state is coming will be an issue for you. If they correct the applicable HUD elements to the TM refresh rate, and they stick up a 60 fps video showing the correct performance and it still presents an issue for you, sure- make the request. But to issue your line in the sand now, when the evidence you have now isn't anywhere near pertinent to the release product- You have to admit- that's a fairly ridiculous position to start a conversation from. I don't see anybody taking offense, just pointing out that obvious fact. Allow things to proceed in an orderly fashion. Provide them the opportunity to show it fixed, allow yourself to see if whether or not it actually bothers you, and then work from there. I mean, hell- if they're your favorite, as you say, and have shown their ability to meet your expectations in the past, as I suspect they have, that favoritism would give them at least a little benefit of the doubt, yes? Some. Others, such as myself, have told developers in private conversation that there's not much point in jumping through the hoops of yet another segment of the population that demand an update every time they hit the john. There are very few "SHOW ME" moments that can really take place in the development of something like this. Model. Model skinned. Interior. Interior skinned. In flight. Panels. Functional animations of the interior and exterior. That's not a lot of real potential updates over the two or more year development life of a product. Anything else demands exposition- statements that, whether you like it or not, are going to be parsed to hell and back by folks with nothing better to do with their time, and will be used against you as a drum six months to a year down the road when something has changed in either the model, the schedule, or what you're permitted to produce by the license holder. Doesn't matter how many copy editors you throw it at. It's much less stress for a development team and their contacts to run silent on the comings and goings on of project from one big reveal to the next. Structured absence makes the heart grow fonder in more than romance, and it stokes a hotter fire long term. The Viggen was a perfect example of that. It was supposition. Then the trailer. Presale a month later. Then prerelease the next. Plenty of threads about it, yet almost nothing the whole way from Leatherneck. And it went off nicely. Very little flak in any direction- to the developers, or between the forum members themselves.

And I don't know why you're unprepared to allow them the opportunity to correct the HUD elements of the actual aircraft before demanding they make an exception on your behalf. We're no less than two quarters before the early access window. Relax. More footage will be available later for you to ascertain if it will actually be an issue for you. If so, then will be the time for you to petition they spend time on it- not now.

No, what you're directing them to do is to add an alteration to something without evidence to support the final product will be an issue for you.

Chef (moving on to the sauce): And here we make the marinara to go with your chicken parm, from a secret family recipe. We receive all our produce for that recipe fresh from local growers daily, including the tomatoes and peppers. Alarmed Patron #2: But does that include the onions and mushrooms? Alarmed Patron #1: And what about the herbs- are those fresh? Chef: That's why I said "all". And the freshness comes through in every bite. Alarmed Patron #2: But why didn't you specify up front? You only said "tomatoes and cilantro". Chef: No, I said 'all our produce for that recipe', and 'including tomatoes and peppers'. Alarmed Patron #2: Are you sure you can't just give us the shopping list and recipe so we can itemize? Chef: Get the hell out of my kitchen. (fifteen minutes later) Placated Patron #1: I really have to hand it to the Chef- this really is delicious. Placated Patron #2: Yeah, but I really don't know why he had to be such an ass about it..."

It's not becoming a problem at all yet, because it's not finished. Amusingly, there's already a built-fix to the HUD for those with issues over the pitch lines: the Declutter mode.

Let them correct the speed for the elements that need it, as Cobra has already stated multiple times- then decide.

Anything at high AoA that causes substantial flow divergence from the inlet at a substantially higher throttle setting than proper will cause a compressor stall. Only if you're fast enough. Higher power settings aren't going to help you if you're doing 120 knots and reefing the pole back and then tap a pedal to a point where the flow isn't capable of moving the heat- then all you get is a compressor stall. See: Hultgreen.

Pretty much. There are three things that cause a compressor stall for an F-14A: 1. low speed, high AoA flow divergence 2. gross throttle manipulation 3. high speed without the inlet ramps set on AUTO 3 is an easy fix. 2 requires you not to be an imbecile with the levers. 1 is the hard part, but it's not so hard when you think about what causes a compressor stall- either too much suck, not enough blow, or not enough suck to force out what's burning. In either event, the turbine is choking. So what do you do? You choke it, just like a choke valve on an engine. And with a FADEC-less jet engine, that's managed by your throttle because while the fuel consumption out back ultimately drives the compressor stages, if there's not enough actual flow through, you're just building heat, not thrust. Which means you fly the engine, as many described the process as. If you know you're going into a high AoA situation that is going to slow you down to effectively a crawl- ie, as you go over the top in the vertical ending less than 150 knots, if you're in blower you reduce power in a smooth fashion. As you generate airspeed back and need to accelerate for further maneuvering, you reapply power gradually- two seconds or more forward, or back. Come out of AB with control. Go back in the same way. If you match the engine setting to the nature of the flow extremes you're presenting it, it won't stall. Choke a compressor to not choke a compressor.

LOL.

"their source" "Heatblur's source" Neither of these things are an implication of it being Heatblur itself, but their SME/provider. The usage of language is clear as crystal. That's what's amusing about this conversation, and not upsetting in the least: the fact that you don't actually know anything, and are incapable of grasping what you are being told, because your supposed "open perception"- ie, *actual* ignorance of the subject is in the way. The FOIA was denied. I acquired the manual through other means; like I said- "deep pockets" and "resources". Or is subtext above your pay grade? Like that payware F-14D for FSX you mentioned.

"Heatblur's source". That's not LN. That's not Heatblur. That's me. But that's okay- you're slow. No- it makes me both knowledgeable, and more experienced, in the process of collecting information than you. It also gives me a history with the process of approval and denial, and the time limitations imposed for review after a denial. Meanwhile, spouting off at the mouth on a subject that you've been repeatedly shown to have no experience or understanding of, doesn't make you special either- it marks you as someone with no value to add in such conversations, and whom should thus be ignored.

Let me provide you with a hint: You called Heatblur's source salty because this is my hobby. Now, do you want to try and pawn off your failed grasp of the English language, US law, and any other facts pertinent to this conversation as less than my ten years experience in doing this same thing your understanding is a mere conceptual idea in, or do I need to bring up the fact that I've easily spent more in FOIAs and manuals in that time than your gross income last year?

Look at the date on the letter. And then read up on US law regarding the release of information from the Fed and the reasons they can deny unclassified information. You're just being an imbecile- stop that. Considering that: A. Their primary work is on the F-14B, rendering the A manual useless, and B. that you're calling their source for the F-14B performance manual "salty", you really should find yourself a better hobby. Protip: declassificaton does not infer access. Nor does it mean that you can find it. See 2 in the response above.

There hasn't been a legitimate payware F-14D for FSX. There was Dinos free version, using a cobbled together methodology of interface design from videos, SMEs, and what few screens are described in the F14AAD-1. Nobody ever got a license for it, and nobody ever got the 1.1s or the 2 series manuals describing the screens and functionality.

Read the letter regarding the reason for denial. And then realize I have received denials using the same legal precedent for materials going back to the early 60s, and have spent substantial amounts of money for declassification reviews that provided nothing but full pages of black marker redaction for aircraft that I have no direct interest in. And then realize you still don't know what you're talking about.

It helps in conversations such as these to know what you're talking about. It also helps to have deep pockets and the willingness to work hard for resources to attain the information of interest through other means. I do all three. You should try it.

.

...it was a nuclear sprint bomber playing in its secondary role. Don't confuse the talents of its crews with the qualities of the machine.