captain_dalan

Fair enough!

Yep!

It's not like the f404-400 has a wealth of information either. Just a level flight envelope for 4 configurations, and acceleration charts. No excess power charts, no Cl max charts, not even STR charts. Had it at least partial STR charts in it, we could estimate the increase in performance based on increase in static thrust for the improved engines (about 11%), similar to the difference between TF-30 and F110 in full burner. Alas, not even that is available.

I think he had at one point. It might be buried under tons of other reports though Looking forward to that as well, but looks like it's gonna take a while.

Still don't see massive use advantage of helmet mounted sights though. It's not the like the Sparrows, even the "dogfighting" variants are that nimble to employ in a hard turning fight and the rear aspect Winders? I bit harder to tell without actual experimentation but i don't see them making the required turn if shot severely out of their envelope. Maybe some use for faceshots with Sparrows? But if it's a faceshot, then why haven't you locked the guy already? And if he's too close you ain't gonna keep 'im inside radar gimble for long anyways. So highly situational at best. Again, not opposing such gizmos, just skeptical of their usefulness. We are still a decade early even by Soviet standards to make high off bore shots viable.

Of course not, nor was it meant to sound that way. Purely pointing out to the semantics, that is the choice of expression

Boy am i late for this party, but on top what everyone else said: Try to enter all breaks coordinated and once you do...... rudder rudder rudder......

BTW, both sources, the SAC and the Flight Manual, state their thrust values as static, not installed, even though one quotes 20900 and the other 17000.

I have almost completely forgotten about the SAC's, and yes they do state 20900lbs of thrust. Thanks for the pointer.

Are some of you guys for real, or are some of you just trolling? On a more serious note, of course i'd like to see exotic stuff in DCS, but would a helmet mounted sight even be any useful given the era most likely any modeled Phantoms are going to be based on?

The major issue is that they are unwilling to engage. When acting as wingmen, they will engage if ordered as soon as entering effective range (usually about 70-80 nautical miles), however, if a flight is composed of AI's only, they just fly and idle intercept. They will defend when fired upon, but will not fire themselves. As you mentioned this happens only about 30 miles in (for medium-high altitudes) or even closer (for medium-low altitudes). Thus they are essentially useless as CAP aircraft as they get shot down by everything you throw at them, even if that other thing is another AI that has no grudges about engaging at much higher ranges.

Hey mate, sorry for the late reply. I took a week off from DCS, both the forums and the sim. I just did some tests though, as i was curious myself as to how this would work out. I had never overridden the wingsweep in DCS before. I remember experimenting with it in another sim, long time ago, and my reaction back then was, wings back and me just don't mix well The tacview is bellow the short text of my impressions. All the breaks are executed with wings back at 68 degrees manual setting, except for the last one, which is executed with the wings in auto for comparison. 1. Wings back limits the g's you have available at a given mach-airspeed; So if you want a 10g pull, you'll need to enter the break at higher airspeed then you would with the wings in auto. This is essentially by the book, that is, it fits well with the math; 2. The effective bleed rate isn't really higher. Or better said, it's higher in the first 5-6 seconds of the break (if you enter it at very high speed, i.e. over 450 knots), but because of the lower lift available, after reaching certain airspeed you just stop bleeding and sort of hang in there. For me in this configuration it was about 200-250 knots, with the former being very hard to achieve as as soon as the plane reaches 200ish knots, it doesn't want to fly anymore and you just drop from the sky; 3. As a result of the above, you end up with a slower turn and a wider turn radius. When comparing the breaks with the last one (the one with the wings on auto), you can see, both the turn rate and the turn radius are much better with the wings on auto. I could tighten the radius to less then 1000ft for short transient periods of time as opposed to no less 1220ft with the wings back; 4. Because of the unfavorable L/D, after dumping energy with the wings back and the higher stall speed you end up with, you can do about 180 degrees of such a turn before turning into a leaf on the wind. Maybe a dozen degrees more, if you enter real fast. Like 470-490 knots fast. Contrast this with the at least 270 degrees that you get, even with 400-420knots when breaking with the wings on auto, before you lose all turning ability. 5. And this is not in the charts and on the track is the actual stability. Now this may a deciding factor on whether you find tactical application for turning with your wings back. The plane IS MUCH MORE stable with the wings back. Only MINIMAL rudder input was required to keep the desired bank angle and over flutter behavior was much more docile. Would i recommend doing it. If your goal is to get from 500-250 knots in a very short period of time, with the minimum of leg-work, then probably. Is it absolutely needed? IMO, no. You can achieve the same goal with better AoA management as long you are proficient with rudder use. My major gripe with using this in a dogfight is that i feel like i'm gimping myself for very little (if any) gain. With wings back at 250 knots i'm stuck in a situation i can't get out of quickly enough. It will take several seconds before the wings come forward when i select AUTO or Forward. My flaps won't be able to deploy until the wings are about half-way there. And my nose is essentially stuck until either of these comes to past. Several seconds are a microscopic time in BFM and luxury i wouldn't allow for myself. But then again, i don't have problems staying at the edge of lift with wings forward, even at 100 knots. In fact, it was last week i discovered a new Jester quote that went something like "100 knots.....falling in style", while practicing BFM against a Viper. No spin, no flameout, but it did lose that fight as you can imagine. Can you somehow combine the benefits or the early break with wings forward by say breaking to 350-300 and then switching to auto? Like we do when we break on CASE I? Possibly? Will it be worth it? Can't say. Maybe if practiced to perfection...... but i still have so much to do regarding AoA management and desent control during my first break into a merge, i'm a long way from exploiting any such advantages even if they are noticeable enough. But the plane was always under control. But enough of me indulging in essay writing, here's the track! Tacview-20211009-170148-DCS-F-14 low level EVAL.zip.acmi

Tacview-20211003-152531-DCS-F-14 low level EVAL.zip.acmi I had the old track files deleted (probably as a result of routine track maintenance), but no matter, i just recorded these and they are close enough. The first two are a couple of 5g warmup turns, i tried to stay between 4.9 and 5.1g in a consistent sustained turn to get the feel for the aircraft. For me it's a must in the F-14. I can't just jump in and scratch at the air for every pound of lift i can get right after takeoff. The configuration is 54000pds gross weight, 4 Sparrows, 4 Winders, full 20mm box and whatever is left for the fuel, probably around 55-60%. I had the fuel burn disabled in the settings, so the data would be consistent throughout the entire flight. Try this with an airshow load and you go Pazuzu with this plane. Wings were left in auto as where the flaps. So to minimize structural damage. Airspeed never exceeded 450 knots and i tried to enter into most breaks with less then or at 400. Even so, i seemed to have spiked at 10g somehow! That's on my though. Observations: 1. You do the full aft stick and ride the 32-33 degree (true degrees, not units) AoA and you can do north of 30 degrees per second for VERY short periods of time. I think i spiked at 35 degrees per second or so. Be ready to dance and i mean DANCE on your rudder pedals. If you don't have pedals, assign rudder inputs to some analogue alternative. You can't stay on the "edge of the knife" without them. This kind of turn, if entered properly will give you about 270 degrees before you bleed out and are near stall. More or less, depending on your entry speed. Even so, the efficiency of your turn (that is, the rate) is highly variable. It starts slower, then picks up rapidly, then drops rapidly and then you just sort of hang there. 2. You do a 25 degree AoA and you max out about 20-24 degrees per second, BUT you get to sustain it longer, and you end up with a higher average turn rate then you do when you pull to the limit. This way with a proper entry you go for over 450 degrees before you bleed out below 150 knots. IMO, but better strategy for most dogfights. Keep the 33AoA for last second jinks and guns-d, while cornering at 25 AoA. 3. It's actually possible (and if you look carefully you'll see it) to actually go over 32-33 degrees AoA when you enter the break at higher airspeeds. I think i managed 35 degrees or so, even with the wings forward. This is transient AoA. It can't be sustained. For a very short time the momentum and lifting body take hold and guide your nose further up then otherwise possible. With wings back and with more airspeed it's even possible to pull more then 35. I've seen data that state more then 40. Do note that while these sort of shenanigans can give Hornets a run for their money, they are not always or even often the best of ideas. They leave you like a dry twig in the wind, just floating there with no energy to speak of. You may get your snapshot or get the bandit to panic and do something stupid. But after that, especially in the A, it takes some time to get the knots (and the capability to do something with them) back. Just take a look how long my extensions are. And i don't mean hair or nail extensions Hope you liked the track and have a great weekend!

There have been quite a few wars waged due to this issue. Even more so then over women! Alas, some were not even proxy!

Great news. Their use as AI in missions is hurt right now.

Painting a picture usually. At range. Generally above what you would call engagement ranges. As long as refresh isn't an issue, you can scan pretty high volumes of space this way and decide on the best course of action.

Roughly speaking, purely academically speaking, how much of an effort it is? And does it involve full engine removal?

I've done some pretty wild 'bat turns' myself with proper technique. In actual combat configuration too. I'll look up the tackview files if you like

No, just no...... you lost me there. Look at the chart carefully, it's a sea level chart, for wings at 16 degrees forward. The manual doesn't specify how or why, but fighting at this setting is strongly discouraged. It would be like fighting in the F-14 with the full flaps down. Possibly even worse. Even so, say you did decide to risk structural failure of the wing roots or the pivot points and not just flaps like you would in the F-14, the following should be taken into account: -F-14A in 4x4 MiG-23 in 2x4 air to air loads, all air speeds are indicated 1. The 23 chart is for sea level, the F-14 chart is for 5000ft. There's a roughly 16% difference in performance (lift to drag ration to be precise) based just on air density; 2.a. The MiG caps at a max lift at just bellow 18 deg/s at 330 knots. That's at lift limit. At this point it bleeds 200ft/s. 2.b. At 5000ft, the F-14 caps (max lift) at 22.5 deg/s at 330 knots at which point it bleeds more then 800ft/s. At 18deg/s it looks to be bleeding a bit more then 300ft/s. Looks like the MiG has a chance, right? 2.c. F-14A adjusted for altitude, caps at over 26deg/s. The -200ft/s excess power adjusted is at 19.7deg/s. At 330 knots, while the mig is flying it's wings off grasping for every last knot of airspeed it can get before stalling (which is not going to happen as it's supposed to be mechanically limited in how much AoA it can pull), the F-14 is matching it or out-turning it, and comes up with more energy after that. This is without tapping into the extra lift at the cost of more energy, that is opting to tighten the turn to get into or spoil a firing solution. 3.a. The MiG ASL sustains 16.6 deg/s at 350 knots 3.b. The F-14A at 5000ft sustains 15.5 deg/s at 330-340 knots. It looks like the MiG is winning, right? 3.c. The F-14A ASL, sustains 18 (17.9899)deg/s at 330-340 knots. It sustains at the MiG's lift limit. 4. The only advantage the MiG has is in climb-unloaded acceleration. The +200ft/s and +400ft/s show clear superiority here. Are you gonna be able to exploit it? Are willing to risk accelerating with the wings full forward and exceed allowed speed for that setting? Can you fly with one hand switching from throttle to wing sweep and managing a dogfight out of that cockpit in real time? How much force is required to move the handle? How fast you can react and change your wingsweep as the airspeed changes? As the altitude changes? As you are pulling 6-8g for your life? 5. This was all at the absolute 'best' and most risky wing sweep. The manual doesn't recommend this setting except for the slowest of slow adversaries. I'd guess helos and the like. Are you gonna enter the merge at that slow of an energy state? What if you need to dive? Get those wings back and you nowhere near an F-14. Wings at 33? you can tangle with F-4's all day long. And mind you, that's a setting recommended for only the most experienced of pilots. Get them at 44 degrees? Well now you are in the Phantom ball park, and not necessarily outperforming it either. Depending on which F-4 you are fighting, you actually may be losing. Bottom line, no. People have tried. They were told by the Soviets they could turn with the F-14. The Soviets told them wrong. Either because they themselves didn't know or as part of their marketing campaign. At this point it doesn't matter. Stick to fighting Mirage F1's and F-4 and you'll do fine. Go against 4th gens, even an F-14A, and you stick to slashing fly low tactics. Or don't. And see what happens. I'm for a NAVY bird, i'm not really into AF ops. Boat or bust for me! And bring on them 23's as well. it's always more fun fighting superior opposition.

Well that's where all the confusion came about. Lack of mention in official sources. And yet, it keeps popping out. It's unfortunate that less and less people remain of that era that can provide accurate accounts.

1. It's not the g-limits that hampered the early 23't though. It was more the nasty flight behavior at high AoA, and it's IIRC the cause for the aerodynamic changes. Besides, like people often mistake high g with good turning, 8, 9 or even 10 g doesn't really mean anything if you need high airspeed to pull it off. Sustained or otherwise. And the 23 falls into this category. 2. Unlike the F-14, the wing sweep on the 23 isn't really meant to be used that way. Forward wings is for landing, wings back is for dash. Middle setting is for everything else. What helps the late 23's when compared to the early ones, aside from do 'dog tooth' and some stabs changes, is that the early ones had that middle setting at 45 degrees (in fact all of them were like this, except for the MLD, which had this capability added) while as you mentioned the MLD had that setting to 33 in addition to 45. Could you decide to go landing mode while in combat? Honestly i don't know. Would it help? With those tiny wings and elevators, most likely not much. 3. Again, by hang i don't think this means actually turn and burn. Or if it does, then the report should be taken with more then a few grains of salt. At one point i considered doing a comprehensive comparison chart for the 3rd gen planes like i did for the 4th gen ones, however, obligations at work and IRL stopped me, as did the availability for data on some planes, like the F1. From what i had gathered up to that point, my observations were these: A. The ML and MLA Floggers (the ones that got lighter, reinforced to do up to 8.5 and 7.5g and got the stabs modified) raised the "maneuverability" of the plane (when in light configuration - 2 missiles and 50-60% fuel) roughly to the level of the MiG-21 BiS in similar configuration. By maneuverability here i mean capability to generate g's, that is ITR. I never bothered to calculate the excess power curves, as those take forever. The sustained turning rates are of course better then the 21 at higher speeds. B. As the late Phantoms and the late Fishbeds are actually comparable (again roughly) in turning capability, even without direct F-4 and MiG-23 comparison node for node, i would expect the 23 to be similar to the late F-4. By late here, i mean soft-winged F-4, with maneuvering devices. C. As the MLD had further improvements over the ML/MLA this should bring it somewhat above the F-4 in terms of pure turning capability. How much above? Hard to tell. I never got to do that math. Unfortunately i stopped with the MLA as mentioned. I would expect better pitch capability and tighter turns with the wings set at 33 degrees, BUT at the expense of the sustained turning capability. Could this this be made useful in flight? Well, wings are moved manually in the Flogger and fumbling around in the middle of hard maneuvers could not be easy, but i guess you could do it if you were good enough. How much would you gain? Probably enough to out turn a Phantom. A Viper? no way. The STR is not going to be better then that on the ML/MLA planes. The vortex generators and new sweep angle with help with ITR, but actually harm STR. And whatever ITR is there, i doubt it'll be enough for even an alpha limited Viper. The stars just aren't aligned for that. The Flogger just started way too behind. It was greatly improved over time, but those improvements were mostly there to remove flaws inherent into the design, thus acting like incremental steps, rather then revolutionary leaps. It remains the testimony of how much you can push a design's capability by integrated ever newer tech and understanding into an old frame (similarly to what the 21 is really), but still doesn't make the jump into the next category. LATE EDIT: On second thought, a wing sweep of 33 VS 45 degrees, may actually improve the lift to drag ratio at lower speeds, thus provide better STR as well. up to what mach number i can't say.

In mission editor. But inside the mission itself?

That would be me, but alas, that isn't going to happen. So cover it is i guess..... or heck, if simulating a AIM/ACEVAL bird, even a TCS would do.

Ah, that goes without saying. The later Floggers were definitely an evolutionary step from the early ones, and IMO probably the "best" that generation of planes had to offer. Their only real downfall was that they had to compete with Fulcrums and Flankers. This makes sense now. I apologize for my comments before. I was under impression that the comment about the 23 outperforming the early Vipers were for the entire or most of the envelope. But 500ish knots and above? Yeah, i could easily buy into that. As mentioned, all accounts seem to indicate the plane was really fast and accelerated like there was no tomorrow. Just don't expect it to wing any turning fights All in all, probably the pinnacle of the 3rd gen fighters. By these i mean, the liked of the F-4, Mirage F1, MiG-23..... To me it always looked and felt like the ultimate capability you could squeeze with that era tech.

Yeah, but the engines it seems, stayed tuned down for the rest of the service. I could never figure out if it was safety due to potential structural failure or due to operation/airflow failure.