Hummingbird

Absolutely 100%, every single thing you can check mark. Also using KTAS to check vs TMN. That said regarding flap setting, everything is ofcourse in AUTO, and as I've noted earlier in a bug report the maneuver devices don't actually start deploying at 0.58 mach as they should, instead they stay in until speed drops to 0.51 mach. So that's an issue. HB already have it, but I'll PM it to you. According to the charts the Ps=0 at 5 kft should be: M 0.30 = 2.30 G M 0.35 = 2.90 G M 0.40 = 3.45 G M 0.45 = 4.15 G M 0.50 = 4.80 G M 0.55 = 5.10 G M 0.60 = 5.70 G M 0.65 = 5.85 G M 0.70 = 6.40 G M 0.80 = 7.00 G M 0.90 = 6.80 G This is with the 4 x AIM9 + 4 x AIM7 load out at 55,620 lbs. Source: Pages XI-9-4, XI-9-5, XI-9-6, XI-9-29 & XI-9-57 in the F-14B performance manual. So those are the load factors you are supposed to be able to hold, but I am consistenly ending up quite a bit below that, esp. near 0.5 to 0.6 mach, and the issue is worse at SL it seems.

Also just to be clear, the testing we do is always using the ctrl + y infobar for accurate true speed, alt and G readings.

I really wish you would've read the whole thing, because as I said "the version that performs correctly performance wise", which the old one did at least in terms of STR in the subsonic region (to within 0.1 to 0.05 G infact), something we tested exhaustively, and do so for pretty much all the aircraft - DCS F-15 for example is spot on the charts for the entire speed range: Link to verify it is legally and publically available (https://www.eflightmanuals.com/ITEM_EFM/SITEM_EFM.asp?cID=3778)

I'm not pissed off at all, I just want the aircraft to perform as it should, and want to know when to expect that to happen. Nothing else from here. That said, it would be nice if updates that screw up the FM would be postponed until they don't, and that we can run with the version that performs correctly performance wise until then though. I say this as these performance issues actually prevent those of us who enjoy BFM'ing from flying the thing, which has now been a good couple of months, and that is hard for those of us who loved flying the thing. So I would've personally prefered for the "old" but correctly performing FM to be kept until the changes needed in other areas could be implemented without breaking the performance - that way many of us could keep on enjoying flying the aircraft until the next update which corrects another area, without breaking another, becomes available. That would be my only critique. I sorely miss flying the thing.

I can, but am I allowed? Rule 1.16 is pretty strictly upheld here.

Just to be clear, I have no problem staying in a level turn and maintaining altitude, been flying in this sim and flight testing for many years, I've got that down. With that said the F-14B is definitely underperforming in STR atm, anywhere between 0.3-0.5 G below charted values in the 4x4 config under the same atm conditions in the subsonic region. Haven't tested in the supersonic region, yet. HB can easily verify this by running tests themselves. Also if they got the thrust figures right then I don't see any reason why the F-14A would be more accurate.

Any ETA on the update? Performance is still quite subpar compared with the charts according to my latest tests, between 0.3-0.5 G below charted values for me still.

Well, aiming a gun with track IR certainly doesn't feel great. I dunno if VR is better

@IronMike You wouldn't happen to have a rough ETA for when a fix might hit? Starting to get withdrawal from not playing the cat in over a month now

So, eh, when are we getting a subforum for this beaut?

0.3 to 0.5 G is quite a lot IMHO, it quickly adds up to quite a lot of degrees lost after just a couple of turns, which is crucial in a dogfight. It's also esp. painful to witness when before the last two patches the F-14 was spot on performance wise, so we know it CAN be made accurate to within 0.1 G. Also just noticed that the maneuver flaps/slats still don't begin deploy until 0.5 mach, when it should be 0.58 according to the CADC schedule. Bug reported previously here:

@IronMike Did a quick test and I can confirm that the F-14 is still seriously underperforming in sustained turn rate: DCS vs RL, 55,600 lbs, 4x4 AIM7 & AIM9 @ SL 400 KTAS (M 0.60) = ~6.2 G vs 6.5 G 332 KTAS (M 0.50) = ~5.2 G vs 5.7 G That's 0.3-0.5 G missing at just those two speeds. I have to admit this puzzles me. It seems like you're not testing and comparing your FM to the available charts before you ship it, which annoys me as we've been waiting a long time for this to be fixed now. Sorry for being negative like that, but it's just how I honestly feel about it. Please fix this soon.

The 109's rudder trim tab was adjusted on the ground so that it would provide stable flight at cruising speeds.

No, as mentioned it featured the same ultimate load limit as the F-15 (infact it was a little higher), the big difference is that the F-14 had to operate from an aircraft carrier, which means a very corrosive environment and several high impact landings a day. Add to this that orders were cut short, and you end up with the reason for the 6.5 G peace time limit. You can call that fantasy if you want, but from an airframe longevity POV it makes all the sense in the world.

If the new materials are there to prevent long term problems & corrosion, then they are by definition also tougher. Also last I checked we've come a loong way in metallurgy since the 70's.

Orders were as mentioned cut short, which is the reason for the 6.5 G operational limit.

All it needed to be certified for 9 G would be full orders, OWS and land based. No airframe reinforcement was necessary, the thing was already tougher than the F-15's until they were extensively modified in the 2000's with new tougher materials.

The INS wouldn't break at 9 G, esp. not on a F-14D with newer digital hardware. As foe newly built F15E's, they're are more resilient as they benefit from substantial advances in metallurgy and other materials since the 70's, increasing strength whilst at the same time saving weight. The F-14 would've enjoyed the same benefits had it been kept, but a certain "D*ck" didnt allow that, something most Navy officers bemoaned.

Nothing hypothetical about it, the F14 was comfortably a 7.5 G plane without a OWS, the ultimate load limit was even a bit above the Eagles. The reason the cats were so worn at the end are pretty obvious, apart from being used in a far more rigorous environment (salt water, carrier landings etc), they had to last a lot longer than the Eagles as orders were cut way short - the very reason they got a peace time 6.5 G limit. Wether the Eagles were in better shape at the end of similar flight hours I also seriously doubt, despite the fact that they never were short on parts for these either, and lots of these had repaired airframes. In short, if you're pulling enough G's to break a Tomcat, you're also pulling enough to break an Eagle.

The F-15's limit was initially set at 7.33 G, the OWS allowed them to push it to 9 G. Had the F-14 gotten OWS AND full orders, it could've been cleared for 9 G as well.

Who knows the exact number, but pilots such as Okie have said it time and again, they definitely didn't have any quarrels about taking the jet past 7.5 G's if it was needed, and they didn't need to worry either as the aircraft was structurally sound to way beyond that limit. Being a particularly heavy Navy plane it was built incredibly strong, the wing box was basically unbreakable, often being the sole thing left intact in crashes where the rest of the airplane was totally obliterated. That said, I'm fairly convinced that unless they were in a combat situation (or some particular competitive mock BFM fight) most pilots would do their best to adhere to the 6.5 G peace time limit, or atleast not cross it by too much. Don't want to piss off your maintenance crew every other sortie

A fact many miss is that the F-14 was designed with the same ultimate load limit as the F-15, the former initially being a 7.5 G rated plane and the latter a 7.33 G rated plane. With the introduction of OWS the F-15's limit was raised to 9 G. Meanwhile F-14 orders were cut short, and hence every aircraft had to last a lot longer and a "peace time limit" of 6.5 G's was put in place. In service however the aircraft routinely went over 7.5 G's, and sometimes extreme G's of 11 to 12.5 were recorded WITHOUT any damage to the airframe (or lost engines). Infact the F-14 is possibly one of the structurally strongest built US fighters ever, and atleast at the time the most structurally tested ever involving a very large amount of testing aircraft. Always worth a watch:

Exactly :thumbup:

0.25 G is beyond what is acceptable (it's quite some angles lost in a couple of turns), esp. when I know it can be spot on, because it was previously.

That's what it currently achieves in DCS... Note the headline: "DCS F-14B, 55,678 lbs, 4x AIM-9 + 4xAIM-7, Std. ICAO (15 deg C), Sea level (unlimited fuel):"