Blaze1

Fwind why are you shocked? :)

You're welcome. :thumbup:

Ignore the CONFIDENTIAL markings, this manual was declassified on 31st December 1995:

That's great to hear Naquaii.:thumbup: Off the top of my head, I think those limits are a maximum of 12°/s in pitch, 60°/s in roll and 3G.

No problem. I'll post a pic for you Naquaii.

I see. Sorry, my previous message wasn't very clear/specific. The limitations I was thinking about are those imposed because of TWS being sensitive to aircraft (ownship) motion, so there are pitch rate, roll rate and g-limits in place to prevent venturing into antenna stabilisation problems, which will cause loss of TWS processing and the dropping of tracks.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the correlation between the AIM-54 model and the TWS model?

Does Heatblur model the manoeuvring limitations imposed on the F-14 by the TWS modes, as well as the consequences of exceeding those limitations?

Yeah. It sounds like they dismissed the idea of it being jet-wash and thought one of the stations may have popped of the jet.

So they had no idea until they reviewed the tape! Talk about a close shave! :shocking:

Nice video. As an aside, the A-6 was really only cleared to carry a maximum of 28 Mk82 size weapons, because the inside forward station of the MER mounted on the inside pylon, would foul the MLG doors if loaded. During Vietnam however, one or two squadrons did experiment with a dirty thirty configuration, by removing the MLG doors, however this was uncommon. I believe one of the reasons for these experiments, was to meet bombs per sortie numbers.

The main (left rear at least) landing gear was damaged and it looked like it was flying in slow motion, so possibly flew into a gale force headwind.

Tenkom, yes that's my interpretation. There's only enough power for 'x' number of seconds of radar illumination, however I'd think the actual figure is greater than 16 seconds to provide a cushion.

Hi Naquali My source is a 1980 - 1983 manual or more appropriate description would be student workbook, on the AWG-9 and it's modes of operation.

Another brief look at the F-15E's air-to-ground radar:

My understanding is that the AIM-54 will go active when the predicted TTI reaches 16 seconds. I think there may be some circumstances however (in the real jet), in which AWG-9 illumination is required all the way to impact.

Real HARMs may switch to another source (unintentionally) if that emitter has similar characteristics to the radar that was initially targeted and is in the missiles FoV. The only other way I'm aware of that this can happen, is with flex logic and that is intentional.

Iranian Jester AI When ? :P

Best to settle this the old fashioned way then........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rock, Paper, Scissors.

I recall there being a set of F-14 maintenance manuals including weapon systems and armament NAVAIR's (dated around 1997 - 1999) that were up for sale on eBay a few years back. eBay has since tightened its policies however.

MooneyTail, I believe the Rhino system you're thinking about is the AB Limit function. The pilot has it boxed and advances the throttles to the MAX AB position, while the FADEC limits actual thrust to 50% AB (I think it's 50%). As soon as onboard sensors detect the cat shot, the FADEC limit is overridden and max AB thrust is created. I think the purpose of the AB Limit function was as a precaution to prevent exhaust gas ingestion or cat steam ingestion and possible engine stall.

I'm only 45 minutes in and it's fantastic so far! Also the CVW-11 appears to be made up of a great bunch of people.

Good post Frederf. The bold part of your statement is of course pretty critical.

Yep, the Tomcat is a beast in that realm. Fortunately for adversaries, there're other areas to exploit.

Timotsuky chill. All I'm saying is that there is already a thread open about F-15E not far below this one, so we don't need another. Here's the link: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=154903