BlackLion213

Yeah, that is an error that escaped editing. One of our SMEs told us that heading out with AICS malfunctions was a big no no, though they would sometimes cheat on cross countries so they wouldn't get stranded. They called it "Stow and go". After take-off they would report the ramp issue and continue to their destination. But otherwise, stow was only for in-flight malfunctions and they were left in auto for cat launches (though there were rare ramp malfunctions on cat shots that resulted in stalls). -Nick

Nah....the F110's spool up times are thoroughly modern and quite responsive. The Tomcat also has a lot more lift than the Hornet, so its approach speeds tend to be a bit slower too. With the addition of DLC (especially the newer DLC in the F-14B), getting the Tomcat aboard is not much harder than the Hornet. Line-up corrections are tougher, but maintaining the glideslope may be slightly easier than the Hornet with the use of DLC. The F-14A's engines are laggier and the DLC less effective....so that model will be harder than the F-14B. -Nick

The target that changed direction was a MiG-25 and the launch range was ~65 nm, can't hit a fleeing target at ranges like that. True that the other 2 AIM-54s failed to light, the first one was mounted improperly by the ordies and the other simply had a very old engine (~20 years old). -Nick

AFCS for both the F-14A and F-14B. :) -Nick

The picture is a F-14A from VF-2 during their 1987 cruise. -Nick

Like a lovely Indo-European language with a few familiar words (merci for example :) ). Farsi is a root language for French. -Nick

Again, there are lots of options available currently for eliminating the jumpy pitch ladder - so I don't see the need for a special feature to address this. :) The mode with the jumpy pitch ladder is landing mode - which real pilots didn't use much anyway. The pitch ladder is far smoother in cruise and A-A mode - shouldn't bother anyone. Lastly, if the pitch ladder is still a bother, you can declutter the HUD and all the remaining elements are quite smooth. With so many options available for addressing this, I am confused as to why another solution needs to be offered as well? -Nick

They are quite smooth. :) You can still notice a tiny bit of jumping in the pitch ladder even with the pitch compression in A-A and cruise mode. But it really isn't noticeable. It really looks just like this video: After a lot of research and adjustments. :) The gun pipper is also very smooth, but jumps as part of displaying range to target. Same with the tracking diamond which does not track the target in gun mode, but shows the 1000 yard gun solution. As the range closes, the pipper and diamond will eventually overlap. After a bit more closure, you get the "breakaway warning - X" -Nick

The refresh rate is already in that vicinity. Hence it wouldn't be smoother with a faster refresh rate. There are options for a smoother HUD, but these are features built into the real F-14, not game options. -Nick

So it turns out that the HUD refresh rate is not an issue, the rate is actually quite fast for all elements but the total velocity vector (which is only present in "Landing mode" anyway). The ladder looks jumpy because there is a resolution limit to the pitch ladder. The usual modes (cruise and A-A) use pitch compression for the pitch ladder, so the movement looks really smooth. Also, the gun reticle and other weapon employment symbology look smooth too. If the pitch ladder bugs users in landing mode, then there is a declutter feature that removes the ladder and there won't be anything jittery on the HUD. Honestly, the HUD in the F-14A/B was really just for weapons employment, not a primary flight instrument. In fact, one of our SMEs routinely turned off the HUD for landings and normal flight since it didn't add anything too useful under those conditions. So there are plenty of options for adjusting the appearance and smoothing things out if don't like the look or if things bother you. I'll encourage Cobra to do some videos in modes besides "Landing" so you can see that as well. -Nick

If you set the HUD mode to "cruise" or "A-A" the HUD becomes quite smooth and stutter/jutter won't be an issue. -Nick

There is a way to silence Jester during a flight, it is part of the regular Jester menu. -Nick

I am referring to the placeholder external and cockpit. :) -Nick

So the HeatBlur F-14 project actually started with the artwork, which were the first images released in early 2015. Those models were meant to be the definitive art work and were undergoing multiple revisions to fix errors and short comings. The problem was that the shape of the F-14 is really complicated with lots of hidden curves and angles. Schematics often don't agree on many of the fine details and photos have perspective-based distortions that can limit their usefulness. Something similar happened with the interior also. Cobra decided to use photogrammetry to help capture very accurate textures. But this also revealed dimensional errors in the interior. Both the interior and exterior were made the "old fashion way" using simple schematics and photos. Because this wasn't giving the quality that Cobra demanded for this project, he decided to travel to the US and laser scan as many Tomcats as he could find. This meant starting over with new models for both the interior and exterior starting in late April 2017. This was a massive undertaking since the detail level afforded by scanning and photogrammetry was much higher, but all the prior shape issues were abolished by taking millimetrically perfect measurements of the real aircraft (many, many separate measurements actually). The end results will be the most accurate interior and exterior of the Tomcat that is technologically possible. But it is a lot of extra work while the other parts are nearing completion. I've seen parts of the new art and it is simply spectacular. Leagues better than the current models, both of which suffer from lots of errors. The Tomcat project will be much better for it, but means less to show while the models are being finished. Things are close though. :) -Nick

Not universally the case. The F-14D in the Smithsonian is in ready to fly condition (actually one of the criteria for inclusion) and the F-14A at the Valiant Air command did not have anything of the sort done to it. The Valiant F-14A was flown in and parked, with 3 or 4 components removed (including the control stick). It has been there since ~2000 so I doubt it would start or run without a massive overhaul, but not all of the engines were "destroyed" per se. -Nick

Yes, that makes sense. :) I certainly agree with you on that. -Nick

The IIAF F-14As were nearly identical to the USN F-14As of the time (as manufactured). The differences you described are correct, but reflect the mid-1970s configuration of the F-14A. The ECM was downgraded slightly and I believe the AWG-9 lacked some ACM auto-acquisition modes, but things were otherwise the same. The engine was the 414 variety (latest model available) and included mid-compression bypass iirc. The engines lacked the protective shroud and there may have been some mild tuning differences, but pretty similar to the definitive engines of the USN F-14A. Iran was one of our closest allies of the time and the aircraft weren't downgraded in any meaningful way. The AIM-54A was one of the most classified weapons of the time and we sold them hundreds. The IIAF F-14s should be regarded as fully operational Tomcats, but not upgraded in any meaningful way since ~1976. That is the real limitation and a significant one. Well the engines were reported to be "upgraded TF30s" so they would look and fundamentally function the same. The USN was planning to add FADEC to the TF30 in the early 1980s since it would markedly improve engine stability during throttle transients and also help a bit with high AOA. Luckily they chose the F110 engine instead since it solved more issues (better thrust and spool up times). Also, not aware of any "exhaust" problems. The exhaust petals were not a source of problems for the F-14. The USN didn't retain them for the F110 since engines are tuned around the burner cans to some extent. You wouldn't change the engine without also changing the afterburners and petals. Still, it would no be a surprise if Iran integrated something like AFTC or FADEC as an upgrade. It would help with both maintainability and reliability, but unclear if anything was actually done. The engines would be the easy part.....the AWG-9 stuff would be a whole other can of worms. I remain pretty skeptical of real upgrades to the IRIAF F-14As since replacing old analog components with digital is no small feat. Convincing these old avionics, sensors, INS, etc to speak to a new computer system would be a really complicated task. New databuses (like the USN) is less of an issue, but really upgrading the avionics and having them work would be really hard. I personally think the "F-14AM" is a "paper" airplane with publicity photos, but no real improvements to its capability. To be honest, just treading water on the F-14 fleet in the absence of parts and ancient technology could keep a lot of people really busy. Actually making significant improvements seems a bit too much imho. -Nick

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the LSO grades the pass while standing on the platform. During the pass, the LSO uses the PLAT to judge line-up, but assessing position on the glide slope is better done from the platform based on subtle cues like aspect, etc. Also, some of the details of the pass are harder to see on the PLAT from what I've heard. But again, I could be mistaken on the grading process. -Nick

I'm quite sure that the contract wasn't the issue. It was simply a matter of no available alternative. At the time that these decisions were being made, there was no other available powerplant of a similar class (both in terms of thrust and configuration). All the other potential options required a lot of R&D and the budget wouldn't allow for any expansion of the F-14 program. The argument was even harder to make to the politicians since the F-14A prototypes were hitting all of their contracted performance benchmarks (top speed, acceleration, cruise efficiency, loiter, etc). So in the end, the program managers chose with their wallet and selected the only available engine that also looked totally satisfactory on paper....hind sight is 20/20. -Nick

Thanks - Heatblur has that PDF file as well. :) Just for clarification, those conditions are a little different than those presented in the engine diagnostic panels. -Nick

But they already have all that info, since they obtained it with the aircraft and US based training. Even docs relating to the AWG-9 from the mid-70s are classified, so it isn't the Iran issue imho. -Nick

Well....not really. The feasibility of projects rest on far more than government classification of the documentation. I mean this in both good and bad ways: documentation on modern aircraft where many systems are still classified is often feasible. On the other hand, the official documents long retired aircraft may still be classified and very difficult to obtain. A salient example is the F-14 - retired for 12 years and the F-14A/B contains avionics largely developed in the 1960s - no security concerns there right? Well the US government still has kept all the official documentation classified save for the NATOPs manual and some principles of operation manuals. The details of the AWG-9, AIM-54A/C, data links, aircraft performance, and even some mundane avionics are out right secret. If you request the information from the official sources they will say no and there is no appeal. And yet.....there are ways to obtain information and those official docs. :) Similarly, the ability to obtain data is one of the critical parts of module development that is often under appreciated. A NATOPs or "flight manual" generally contains ~20-30% of the information that is needed to accurately reproduce an aircraft. If you actually sit down and read these manuals, you realize they are often quite vague and speak in generalities. Typically not enough to really model how something works. They also generally lack any information on weapons, sensors, real performance, ECM, etc. Obtaining all of these more obscure sources can be a ton of work and could make or break a project. As ED has said concerning the P-47D, sometimes data is just not available simply because the info was destroyed or hidden somewhere without records of its whereabouts. On the other hand, you may be able to find everything you need even for something quite modern. An outsider can't really predict what will or will not be feasible. Now understand, I don't now what Heatblur plans to develop or release next and I am not aware of a JAS-39 or JA-37 in development (but I'm just a tester). Still, I've learned from recent experience that the range of options is broader than I expected, but simply not predictable. There is an element of luck with all of this, but I am so glad that they got lucky with their Tomcat documentation. :thumbup: -Nick

So you mean flying as a section? A pair of Tomcats (like any fighter) is way more effective and survivable than a single aircraft. :) -Nick

You might be thinking of the TARPS equipped jets that sacrifice the forward tandem AIM-7 position for the hardware needed to operate the pod. But regular F-14s have two forward AIM-7 positions and 2 tandem AIM-7 positions as seen here: -Nick

Well, the DCS B-17G is what the aircraft looked like the in the summer of 1944: Its a totally standard scheme for the 447th Bombardment group. :) The OD over grey scheme was pretty rare by the summer of 1944, especially in the newer B-17Gs with the Cheyenne tail as depicted in the current B-17G. OD over grey was 1942 to late 1943, after that the unpainted aluminum predominated. Also, by the summer of 1944, the 8th was launching big missions with around 1000 bombers. Nearly all these bombers were based in southeast England and the bases were just a few miles from each other. As such, it was easy for bombers to accidentally form up with the wrong group if they weren't careful (their fuel load was based on their target, so attempting to fly with the wrong group could end badly). To avoid this, Bomb groups were sporting ever more distinctive markings as time passed - hence all the yellow and big numerals. But it is a totally accurate scheme and not an outlier in terms of appearance. Here are some reference photos. :) http://www.8thafhs-pa.org/stories/bomb-group-gallery/447th-bomb-group/ -Nick