BlackLion213

So wing rock is a "standard" characteristics of swept wing jet aircraft that generally occurs due to the interplay between dihedral effect, decreasing lateral stability at increasing AOA, and adverse yaw. In the Tomcat, wing rock is actually a stabilizing effect due to the interaction between the yaw effects of roll and dihedral effect that allows it to extend through an AOA range of decreased yaw stability (20-28 units) to a range with improved yaw stability (30+ units). There is also some debate as to the actual cause of wing rock in the F-14 vs other fighters, whether it is leading edge stall of the wing opposite the side slip or the result of yaw alone with strong dihedral effect. In either case, the wing rock arrests the sideslip effect and prevents the aircraft from developing nose slices or departures in this AOA range. The only way to depart is to deliberately sustain an input that causes considerable sideslip. The vortices mentioned by Victory do not lead to less lateral stability, they lead to the onset of buffet in the F-14 and are notable for not being a sign of aerodynamic stall. Buffet is also a rather variable phenomenon that means different things in different aircraft. The Phantom video below discusses it somewhat. It is also worth noting that the F-14 has several handling characteristics that are new for DCS players (like roll reversal and the need to use rudder at high AOA for roll), but these are "standard" handling features of fighter aircraft dating back to the F-86 Saber. Also, this video on handling the F-4 Phantom discusses the issues of dihedral effect and adverse yaw due to the effect of high AOA on ailerons. Dihedral effect is the development of roll moments related to yaw on a swept wing aircraft, basically because the wing seeing sideslip has "less sweep" and more lift while the other wing has less lift due to the higher effective sweep. This causes an aircraft to roll towards the direction of yaw. Adverse yaw is the effect of the nose yawing away from the intended direction of intended roll, which leads to "roll reversal". It has several different causes, but for most aircraft it is the fact that the "down aileron" has more drag than the "up aileron" due to blanketing of the upper surface of the wing at high AOA. The Tomcat has a similar effect in that the differential tails cause disparate drag at high AOA (and the wing spoilers generally have little overall effect at high AOA). Lastly, virtually every jet has a reduction of yaw stability at high AOA and wing rock is often an early sign of this effect. You are correct that many aircraft develop wing rock shortly before the onset of aerodynamic stall. The Phantom typically develops wing rock about 3-4 units of AOA below the stall AOA. However, the Tomcat does not actually stall like a traditional fighter so the wing rock is not a warning like it would be for other aircraft. Instead it does tell you that you are past optimal turn performance AOA and that the pilot is not managing sideslip very well. In the Phantom, the combination of decreasing yaw stability at high AOA and wing drop associated with aerodynamic stall was very likely to cause a true departure and high risk of spin. One of the revolutionary features of the Tomcat was that it would not depart under these conditions due to the stabilizing effect of the wing rock (in the Tomcat) and the increase in yaw stability above 28 units AOA. This allowed the aircraft to reach AOAs as high as 50 deg without a risk of departing, though sufficient control is not really there to use it beyond a snapshot. It is true that you can cause the Tomcat to spin at high AOA with bad control inputs - namely lateral stick above 20 units. The difference is that the Phantom would still depart at high AOA even with proper control inputs and the Tomcat will not. This represented a significant improvement in the ability to exploit high AOA flight and made the aircraft way more forgiving than prior jet fighters. -Nick

INS cannot be damaged till G exceeds 11-12+. So also probably related to a very high transient G. -Nick

I wouldn't have expected that to happen at 9.3G, but the problem is often the "G transient" and not the figure displayed in tacview. The overall G may be reasonable, but for a split second the G may be way higher - like 12-15 Gs! Instruments like the G meter won't register in time and the blackout effect takes a moment to onset as well. These high transient Gs usually occurs due to very abrupt control movements that would not likely occur in real life due to the force required. The Grumman G rating is actually 7.75 G, but the USN reduced the G rating in the late 1970s as the slow procurement rate made it clear that airframes would need to last a long time. 6.5 G was the "peace time" G limit and 7.5 G was the "war time" G limit. If I remember correctly, the risk of structural failure starts around the high 9s or low 10s, though I thought it was 10+. So either you generated a high transient G or you caught a very small probability of a failure at 9.x G. In either case, the way to avoid such things is slow down the control inputs and smooth things out. -Nick

Here ya go: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3796250&postcount=1 He is a former F-14 pilot with 1600 hours. -Nick

And none of them were Tomcat pilots (unlike the 3 different pilots who independently verified the flight model). Whats next, a bus driver is going to tell me the best way to heel-toe a Dodge Viper? The Tomcat is easy to fly, but if you fly like an idiot then you will look like an idiot. No guessing in your case.... -Nick

Oh lil' Kev....none of us take your crap, we just step over it. :D Did you read what that post? That pilot also said that all their training was for the "single-seat mentality". If you don't train for crew coordination, then you won't do it right. And that pilot still mentioned significant benefits, but their division of labor left A-A to the pilot since F-15Es exclusively perform A-G as their primary mission. Their WSO is occupied with things on the ground. As for the single seaters who don't see the benefit....between ego and lack of experience I can't take that opinion too seriously. Would you ask a homeless man for financial advise? Not sure why you would ask a F-16 pilot about the benefits of a RIO. The USMC's mission is A-G, they added a 2nd crewman because it was needed for the mission. Which says a lot when you take a short-legged F/A-18C and make it even shorter-legged - seems they really needed that guy. The same for the USN when they opted to have a F/A-18F squadron in every airwing after initially planning for only single seat squadrons. But feel free to have your opinions....just a shame to see it constructed on things that are so flimsy. -Nick

I do buy the unloaded acceleration, but it takes a moment to drop the AOA and see the energy build. It takes at least a second to start building up steam, though it seems to have better unloaded acceleration than the F-15C (to me at least). The connecting feature of the F-14 is that direction changes are subject to more inertia than other fighters. It’s not just about mass (according to a NASA aero paper), but it’s easy to over control the aircraft. With some practice all these issues will sort out and flying the Tomcat will feel very different. -Nick

Well you can't sustain 6.5G at corner velocity at 10K' as LunaticFringe said, but you should be able to at 5K'. I attached a tacview file of me flying in circles....on purpose this time. ;) Corner speed is roughly 350 KIAS and you should be able to hold 5 Gs clean (track starts at half internal fuel). Holding altitude and maintaining steady airspeed is tricky, but you can see that 5+ G is very doable sustained. Down at 5K', 6.5-7G sustained is manageable at 320-335 KIAS (go to the end of the tacview file). Again, maintaining ideal airspeed in a level turn is tricky so speed and G oscillate a bit (especially with the ASI vibrating under buffet). Also, the AOA listed in Tacview is wrong for some reason. All of these turns are 14-17 units (higher at lower altitudes) for sustained turn rate. I suspect that you are overshooting sustained AOA since it takes a moment for the F-14 to settle into the turn. So players keep adding back stick and are rewarded with more pitch rate till the airspeed bleeds off. You should be targeting 14-17 units at all times unless intentionally trading energy for nose position. Even then, more than 22-24 is just wasting energy, pitch rate precipitously drops off above 25 units. Hope this helps. The performance is definitely there if you fly to parameters. Amusing that we've had a thread on the Tomcat way over-performing and under-performing in one week..... -Nick Tacview-20190406-213826-DCS.rar

Have a look at how emissions take place with a focused EM beam. Even if the beam is tightly focused there are additional emissions that encompass 360 degrees. Less power than the main lobe, but certainly significant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_lobe -Nick

At what altitudes are you noticing a difference? 25000’ or so? This will help us to track down the bug. -Nick

From probad or the module? -Nick

This mission is very win-able and the F-16 follows very predictable tactics. I typically hit the merge at 450 kias (more is counterproductive imho) and roll to a 65 deg aob and perform an inclined 2 circle fight. Your turn should be around 8 G and 15 units AOA with wings around 45-50 deg (in auto). You will end the 180 deg turn with about 350 kias and keep it there. The F-16 will be slightly above you and heading downhill for another head to head pass. Initiate a break into him slightly nose down at 320-350 kias (wings 20) and maintain light to medium buffet for 15-17 units AOA. Usually the F-16 then overbanks and pulls down the nose to take the fight down low. Use your rudder and roll to place him on your lift vector and pull down your nose to follow him. You should now be creeping into a good nose position and the F-16 is flying slower than it should. The F-14 holds a “G available” advantage at all speeds below Mach 0.6 so keep the F-16 turning at all times. From here on out you should be modulating stick to maintain light buffet, stick centered, and roll with the rudders. Maintain your energy and you should have a guns solution in about 1-3 minutes. I’ve flown this mission at least 100 times (I made it after all) and haven’t lost it or run out of fuel for something like a year. The F-14B can definitely win it consistently. :) -Nick

Well it’s important to note that the fuel flow gauge does not show afterburner related fuel flow, only core engine fuel flow. So it isn’t an indication of when the burners have lit. Also, fuel flow is not exactly coupled to RPMs, so you may be seeing the AFTC metering fuel based on throttle position, but not leading to a meaningful change in engine RPM. -Nick

It’s basically a Block 145 in terms of configuration. That prior BuNo was just a placeholder. :) -Nick

There are a few art details left that will be added or adjusted in EA and the EIG panel is one them. The list also includes the ALQ-126 fuselage blisters and the ACLS blade antennae in the TCS body. -Nick

Smooth landing, but about 40 knots fast. :) Definitely would have parted a wire on that one. -Nick

It is because the wings are in oversweep when the auto button was pressed. The wings need to be at 68 deg or less and the master reset needs to be pressed anytime the the emergency wing sweep handle is moved. If the wings are in oversweep and you hit the button for "auto", the indicator will continue to display oversweep and emergency until with wing sweep handle is moved to 68. Once you set it to 68, press down the handle, and hit the mast reset; the CADC will take over and motor with wings as needed as part of the wing sweep program. The auto flag will also display on the indicator at that time. -Nick

Tomcats (and Intruders) have a fair bit of trapped fuel under normal conditions. F-14s have been known to flame out an engine with the totalizer reading as much as 700-800 lbs. So that 1200 lbs is really more like 500 lbs of useable fuel. Not even enough for a single look at the deck. :) -Nick

I’m quite sure both are meant to be attitude. The INS and associated systems are the only way the WCS knows how the aircraft is oriented. Similarly, if the IMU fails or is not adequately aligned, the VDI pitch ladder and heading tapes will not function properly (same for the HUD). This is true IRL and in game - so don’t skip INS alignment. ;) -Nick

That makes sense. The F-14A and B’s HUD is really just for weapons delivery. -Nick

Uh...what? The HUD is definitely not a primary flight instrument on the F-14A or B (it is on the D). In fact, NATOPS states that the AOA bracket on the HUD is not as reliable as the cockpit tape. Otherwise, the only HUD indicator that Tomcat pilots used during approache was the heading tape. Why would losing that necessitate a straight in? -Nick

Thank you for the kind words Victory. It is much appreciated! Thank you! I’m not an entertainer or fan of hyperbole. :) -Nick

So its worth noting that nothing in this post actually contradicts Victory's excellent post above. There seems to be a sense among forum-goers and aviation enthusiasts in general that you can predict the outcome of an engagement by comparing EM tables and consulting "anecdotal" evidence to confirm an aircraft's capability. But the reality is that these factors are way down the list in terms of meaningful data points or evidence of an aircraft's value to its user. All aircraft are machines operated by humans. These machines have strengths and weaknesses, but the magnitude of variability between human operators consistently exceeds that of the machine. We like to use silly comments like "well, with equal pilots..." - what does that mean? How to value someone's relative capability in the cockpit? If someone is outstanding at managing energy, but lacks the decisiveness to switch tactics when things aren't quite going well, how do you rate that? What would you rather be: someone who is masterful at reading seat of the pants cues, but has poor judgement with choosing tactics? Someone who deeply understands their opponent, but struggles to keep sight of them during an engagement? How do your squadron mates rate you when you are excellent at managing a strike, but have the lowest landing scores in the squadron? In the end, these beautiful machines are tools and air combat is not a game of equals squaring off in a joust. The F-15C doesn't have a 104-0 kill ratio because of its EM chart; it is because those who fly it are very well trained, have excellent SA by virtue of their sensors and supporting aircraft, and the pilots exercise proper tactics and mutual support. Survival in air combat is all about awareness, initiative, and making smart choices. It is still a human vs human endeavor, though maybe this will change someday it hasn't yet. So while we debate the endless "who would win", we discuss the variables that have a relatively small contribution to the final outcome. It is fun to talk about, but ends being little more than minutiae, honestly. To respond to Top Jockey's other question: why did VX-4 and VX-5 criticize the Hornet when it beat the F-14 "20 out of 34 times in BFM"? Well first, what happened in the 14/34 engagements and did VFA-125 throw out 66 other engagements because they didn't like the result? What were those 34 engagements? Seems a bit random, but who knows? All history now. But VX-4 and VX-5 criticized the F/A-18A for having poor range, no better accuracy than the A-7E it replaced, and underperforming in the case 1 pattern with the inevitable external tanks. The Hornet was at risk of being cancelled because it was failing several of the USN's minimum criteria for acceptance: payload, range, and acceleration in the landing configuration. Rather significant demerits, but the USN needed a replacement for the A-7E and the F/A-18A was certainly better at pop-up maneuvers and dodging SAMs. There were no other aircraft in the pipeline, so the USN changed its cycle time, recommended new flight profiles, and changed minimum requirements to make it work. Luckily, it was a fun aircraft to fly and the USN was willing to make it work. It cost the USN some striking power and autonomy as it became far more dependent on USAF tanker assets, but it also received a fighter that was forgiving, reliable, pretty capable, and more survival against the threats of the 1990s. It managed to be both a burden on Naval aviation and the backbone of Naval aviation at the same time. But everything has its issues, Tomcat included of course. :) -Nick

Sorry for what? You are referring to the F-14 test where the aircraft was limited to 4 G because another F-14 was found with metal shavings in the wing sweep mechanism and Grumman was sorting it out? Yeah, it was.... Not much of a comparison, but at least the Israelis could turn a blind eye towards a he F-15’s afterburner blow outs and hard starts. We all see what we want to see. -Nick PS - if the F-15 was a USN airplane it would be gone too, just like the F/A-18C

You only deserve a thank you when you add something of value to the conversation, what you wrote here certainly doesn’t qualify. Do you specialize in weak arguments and skimming Wikipedia or is it just a hobby? The Israelis evaluated the Tomcat on paper in the early 70s and never flew it. The EM charts clearly show the F-14 matching the eagle’s STR at 15000’ and below and not kore than a degree behind up to 30000’. Below 10000’ the F-14’s performance is better. While I’m sure you can rationalize this with a quote from Bill’s cousin who once saw a F-15 take off and thought it looked fast, it would be a real discussion if you bring forward something worth discussing. :) And you are welcome. -Nick