BlackLion213
-
Posts
1586 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BlackLion213
-
-
If they model an specific F-14B variant that only happened to exist between 1995 and 1996 - yes, it is.
Yeah, I suppose that 1995-96 would be a narrow timeframe, but as my last post clarified - the planned F-14B will be representative of the aircraft as equipped from 1988-1996. :)
They have already said that they will "continue their tomcat journey" and have kinda hinted that it maybe, possibly, probably will be either a late model B with all the toys or a D. So it cant be that scarse.Exactly, there is much that may be added with time. :thumbup: We'll have to see how it all comes together.
-Nick
-
Pity that HB models a specific model of such a tight timeframe
1988-1996 is a narrow timeframe?
-Nick
-
Actually I believe they said they scrapped *all* of the visual assets (3d models, artwork, etc). The only things that were retained were the TCS pod we were shown and the individual cockpit panels (the ACM panel, front pit VSD , etc). They did this after visiting several museum Tomcats with a laser scanner and found they could realistically take it all to the next level (or crank it up to 11 as Spinaltap would say)..so they did.
Indeed, though the TCS was actually just the first public example of the new artwork using the latest techniques. All the new interior images posted by Cobra (since November) are of the new artwork as well.
-Nick
-
hey Nick,
Back in May 2015, you were very optimistic about 2016 launch of the Tomcat as well and trashed me when I said that I expect it in 2017 (see, even I was too optimistic)
the discussion page here :)
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2585598&highlight=2017#post2585598
That was before I was flying the module everyday.... :)
It could take longer than I expect, but I'm giving my perspective based on the product in front of me.
-Nick
-
Where's BlackLion213 when you need him?
I somehow missed this post and had to finish planting some trees this afternoon. :)
In any case, players will be able to proficiently operate the weapon systems from the pilot seat only with the help of Jester. Jester is actually very useful even at this stage and things are working better than I expected. :pilotfly:
At current state, the F-14 module is fully combat capable with all A-A weapons without the need to enter the RIO seat. There are several more features coming, but currently Jester has a solid breadth of functions: target spotting, target ID using IFF and the TCS, electronic emissions/RWR reports, ability to STT targets (pilot specifies which targets), manages chaff and ECM (once ECM is implemented), and can assist with functions like aircraft start-up (coaching the pilot in addition to performing the RIO component of aircraft cold start).
For BVR with AIM-54s, Jester currently uses TWS auto, but IFFs targets (which helps TWS auto properly sort targets). This allows pilots to employ the AIM-54 very effectively and you can see on the TID repeater which targets are the priority, which have AIM-54s inbound, and which targets had missile misses. With the AIM-54, the pilot can also request a STT lock which adds more range to a launch. This current arrangement works pretty well, but more functionality is planned to support multi-aircraft engagements and maximize effectiveness.
For AIM-7s, the pilot has a few options: he can request a STT lock from Jester via the menu or employ the pilots auto acquisition modes for the radar. These are PAL, VSL, and PLM. PAL is a horizontal scan mode with 10 nm and is the most handy for AIM-7 employment against bandits when time is tight. PLM has less range, but is more focused (better for grabbing a specific target if you can see it) and VSL is a vertical scan mode used for ACM. These modes really complement Jester since they allow you to rapidly acquire a target if you don't have time to ask Jester for STT. Between these modes and Jester's skills, employing the AIM-7 in the Tomcat is no harder than the F-15C imho.
For ACM, there is the gun and AIM-9s - using these is similar to other DCS aircraft. Jester proves to be very handy for spotting targets and keeping your 6 clear. He also manages chaff (pilot manages flares) and tells you if an enemy missile or SAM is inbound, plus notifies you of missile misses and successful missile hits against your targets. For ACM encounters, Jester is quite mature and functions very well. There are more functions planned for BVR, but you can comfortable go 1v2 or even 1v4 against Soviet fighters right now with the current functions. :)
Jester will never be as good as a human RIO (servers would be silly to deactivate him - basically the same as saying "no Tomcats allowed"), but single player employment of the Tomcat's impressive capabilities will be very feasible. Things work well now and will only improve as we more towards EA (and probably still improve after).
-Nick
-
But flying F-14 some times can be a pain. If you stuck in a dogfight you should be very careful about pulling the stick. No, you will not blackout, likely you will have a compressor stall, Hornet don't have such a problem. Hornet even have the Departure recovery program if you over do (home ED emplement it in some time). Well this this opinion was based on my expirience, and I hope that ED and HB will make much more accurate modules.
The Heatblur module will be far more accurate FM-wise than the A/S rendition, plus you don't have to worry about compressor stalls in the F110 powered F-14B that is being released first. It was an incredibly robust engine and never developed a compressor stall while installed in the F-14.
The F-14A is another matter, but even the TF30 in the A/S Tomcat is not very accurate. From the F-14A pilots I've spoken to, not one has seen a pure AOA related compressor stall in 1200-1500 hours of Tomcat flight time. In fact, of the three only 2 of them had any form of stall and only once each in their career. While it was possible for high AOA flight to cause a compressor stall in an engine at zone 5 or mil, it was very rare. The much more likely scenario was some form of throttle transient while at high AOA (like backing down from zone 5 or trying to come in or out of burner).
Also, the engine was far more susceptible to stalls at lower RPMs, so high AOA flight with engines at ~80% N1 was risky.
The A/S F-14 module only has one form of stall that actually didn't exist in the F-14A - the engine pops then flames out (which actually would have been preferred to "hung stalls" of the real F-14). Instead the TF30 compressor stalls come in 2 flavors: "the cough" and "the hung stall". The cough is a transient stall that spontaneously clears. Generally a loud bang with perhaps a very brief decrease in thrust. These coughs were much more common than hung stalls.
Hung stalls were the bad ones - a fully developed compressor stall that could lead to fire and loss of the aircraft. But the engine doesn't actually flame-out, the RPMs and thrust slowly decay, internal engine temp rises, and the engine does not respond to any throttle inputs. In order to avoid fire (which will develop in about 30 seconds), the engine was be manually shut down via the throttle fuel cocks and the engine cooled by windmilling till TIT falls to safe levels. These events were more rare.
Anyway, all this drama can be easily avoided by flying the F-14B and enjoying its epic power. :D
But for those (like me) who want some additional, but very manageable challenges, they will be available too.
-Nick
-
Hi all,
Bought the f18, looks awesome and i support ed to further develop DCS.
I was wondering, which module will be easier to learn the f18 or f14. I am really waiting on the f14 and am a bit dissapointed that it isn't announced for EA yet, anyways the EA announcement for the hornet is great news!
Which module will be easier to get to grips with? I am not a pro by any means and tears of joy flowed when i landed the mirage the first time (yeah that's the level i am at, love the mirage)
Cheers!
Great question. :)
In terms of stick and rudder activities, the F-14 certainly takes more time to learn than the Hornet. That said, it's certainly not an unruly beast to fly. It was stable and well mannered in normal flight with some gotchas that you need to account for at high AOA. But compared to other modern fighters in DCS (like the F-5E or F-15C, non-FBW jets) it feels pretty similar except that it is a bit less responsive in pitch and roll during normal operations. There is a sense of inertia when initiating pitch, but big inputs get the nose moving quickly (and potentially building AOA quickly so don't just pull the stick into your lap and leave it there). However, its pitch rate can match the Mirage and F-15C (and exceed the rate of both at speeds less than 350 knots), so performance is excellent.
Roll is also much more stable than the F-5E or F-15C in that it takes bigger inputs to generate significant roll rate and max roll rate is slower than either of those. Also, depending on speed, stores, and G-loads you will see either proverse or adverse yaw during roll. It is generally not something that requires compensation, you just might notice it during maneuvers.
One of the gotchas is control reversal at high AOA - once AOA reaches the 20s or so, left stick will generally result in rolling right. The key is that above 20 units AOA you use the rudders to roll and this works great. However, if you don't turn off roll SAS before starting these maneuvers and try and rudder roll, SAS will try to cross control the aircraft and a departure is fairly likely. You need to set-up the jet for ACM with a couple of system settings (like the SAS system).
Landing the F-14 is really fun though! :) The aircraft likes to slide around laterally on approach and roll inputs generate adverse yaw followed by the desired lateral movement. The aircraft also requires frequent adjustments to the glideslope since it likes to float (it has a ton of lift in the landing configuration). On the other hand, you can really slam it onto the deck and don't have to worry about flaring. I'm a Heatblur F-14 tester so I've spent a lot of time in the module and tried to land the F-5E recently - blew both tires. :music_whistling:
So staying on course requires some effort/attention, but touchdowns are easy.
However, the kicker is that the module is simply so much fun to fly. I whole-heartedly agree with this statement:
The real 'feel' is IMO only present in non-FBW planes.The Tomcat really feels like flight and is very rewarding to fly - more so than anything in DCS imho. The FM is simply fantastic, very dynamic depending on flight regime, stores, speeds, etc. It feels like you are piloting a machine and the challenges make it much more enjoyable in the end. It is bewitching and awesome. I think people will love flying it. I also have no doubt that the Hornet FM will be exceptional, but the piloting sensation will probably be covered up somewhat by the FCS.
Systems wise the Tomcat is certainly much simpler than the Hornet - largely because there is a division of labor between pilot and RIO. Most of the complicated systems are managed by the RIO and the pilot really focuses on flying and weapons employment. RADAR, TCS, INS, and ECM/countermeasures are all handled by Jester or your human backseater. This lessens the learning curve a lot. Jester is also coming together very well and is already very useful for both WVR and BVR (even with further improvements on the way).
So overall, both these aircraft will be exceptional modules and the experience of flying them will be very different. Its a bit like comparing shirt and pants - you really need both. :)
If you love flying then the Tomcat will offer more of that. If operating systems is your favorite then the Hornet is the clear choice. Even novice pilots will be able to fly the Tomcat well with some practice (especially the F-14B). It just takes some time and effort, but learning is really fun and rewarding.
Best,
Nick
-
2
-
-
I'm not expecting to see the release of the F14 until fall 2018.
That's pretty pessimistic.....I certainly expect it well before that.
-Nick
-
It doesn't get anymore BVR than the F-14 :)
This is true. :)
Back to the OP's question: among DCS modules available now, the Mirage 2000C is the only one with real BVR capability. It is a nice module and fun to fly, it also improved a lot recently with the flight model update imho. Feels much better now.
That said, I fully expect the Tomcat and Hornet module to set new highs for flight model accuracy, visual fidelity, and depth of systems. They will be awesome and offer a lot of new features over the current DCS modules.
So it depends on your time frame. If you really want something now (or within a month or two) you can buy the Mirage 2000C with confidence.
But if you can only buy one or two new modules over the next 6 months, I would definitely hold out for the Tomcat or Hornet. :)
-Nick
-
seems unlikely, last i read of this thing, there was a whole heap of stuff left to be coded. besides they wont want to coincide their release with the hornet release.
Nope, not a heap of coding left to do. Things are pretty mature and very functional. Fine-tuning and bug squashing remains, but major systems are in place. The F-14 won't be a module released with basic systems. :thumbup:
-Nick
-
I'm getting very good at the Aerosoft F-14 (on FSX, so added level of annoyance), so here's to hoping some of what I'm learning transfers over.
Yes, time in the AS F-14 will give you a head start, especially in terms of basic systems (interpreting displays, basic controls, etc). Also, the AS Block 90 F-14A gives you some idea as to handling, but the Heatblur version is so much deeper and more nuanced. For example, I haven't flown the AS one for at least 6 months, but I remember it wing-rocking any time above 20 units (or so) AOA. With the Heatblur FM, things like wing-rock are highly dependent on stores (like the AIM-54 pallets in particular) and whether or not you elicit the rock with sideslip. If the aircraft is clean and light, you don't see it much, but breaking into an opponent at 20K' after launching your AIM-54s - it'll probably be there if you build up too much AOA (again 20-25+ units). Same with the landing behavior, so much depth and subtle variation based on loads, control inputs, stores, etc. It is simply fascinating to fly! :thumbup:
I think the lack of news about the Forrestal carrier, ground crew and carrier operations will be Heatblur wait to ED carrier improvement and futntionality before put them into your units. Surely after the F/A-18C release.Well, not really. The Heatblur CV-59-62 will gain functionality as ED adds features to the DCS carriers, but its more about the art-team being fully devoted to the F-14 artwork at this time.
-Nick
-
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3041560&postcount=15
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3305167&postcount=1061
Based on the comments above, it looks like we are due for pre-release or a very detailed update on the Tomcat and associated content any day now.
Its worth mentioning that this estimate was made before the decision to redo all of the artwork. When Cobra visited the US and photo'ed a dozen Tomcats in detail, he decided to laser scan and use photogrammetry to achieve a dimensionally accurate cockpit (perfect in fact). The current placeholder (originally to be definitive) was created using purely photo references and that technique simply has limitations. Now with VR in the mix, 3D inaccuracies can be quite noticeable in a way that was not a factor before.
The new cockpit will be spectacular (and 3D external - also redone from external scans and now way more accurate), but the art team is fully dedicated to the F-14 itself to stay as close as possible to prior estimates. This also why you haven't seen any Forrestal class updates for a while.
Cobra plans on a "Road to Release" post in the next few weeks which will detail the current state of things and next steps.
FM and system modeling are coming along beautifully, as is Jester. The F-14B (followed by F-14A) will be a very high functioning and fairly complete module on release. It is already more complete than a lot of prior EA products in terms of capability and functionality.
-Nick
-
So you're saying that it has a proximity fuze and doesnt have to score a direct hit? :O
I'm not totally sure of the mechanism, but watching the missiles in the F6 view I've seen quite few trajectories that look to be a near-miss actually result in a hit. Also, misses were a lot less common than I'm used to in DCS, it is quite an effective A-A weapon against fighters (which is really all I've used it against). :)
-Nick
-
I have a strong feeling that you would mostly see
4*aim7+4*aim9 or 6*aim7+2*aim9 while flying online.
Aim54 is not something you would shoot at a flighter target. (That is expecting to get shot).and no one will let you shoot down all the tankers and AWACS for the "other team" in TvT.
I don't think so - the AIM-54 is way more lethal against fighters than the AIM-7. Whats amazing is that the Heatblur version has a lower G-limit than the real Phoenix to optimize its performance at range and it still is remarkablely effective. I'm testing it and have been quite impressed. I guess that giant warhead (bigger than that of the SA-6) makes up for the G-limit quite well.
I would take the threat seriously....:D
-Nick
-
That's an epic teaser! Love ZX Spectrum computer...those were the days! (backed a kickstarter of Spectrum Next earlier this year too).
Just don't ask me to figure out which aircraft is on the loading splash screen :P (used to print those out with a line printer holding a pen back in the day).
Edit: Rudel or someone, please...try to clean the head of your cassette player and try again, it might load the screen properly this time or at at least a bit further! :D
Hey guys, it looks like the visible (top)portion of the screen shows a wing:
The wingtip is right under the LNS logo, below that it looks like struts. There is no visible tail or fuselage at the level of the wing - so it looks like a biplane.
But a biplane from 1977....? :unsure:
So an aerobatic plane? That matches one of the recent clues that looks like an aerobatic routine, not to mention "P.S. Do expect surprises".
-Nick
-
Have you read "feet wet" from admiral Gilcrist? Really good book covering 20+ years of naval aviation. He flew in Vietnam with the crusader
No I haven't, but thank you for the reminder. :) I have his book on the Tomcat, but forgot about Feet Wet. I need to check it out.
-Nick
-
Not true. VF-213 was in my Air Wing (CVW-8 ) during the war cruise in 2003 on the TR. VF-31 then joined us for the final Tomcat cruise in 05/06.
Oops. Sorry about that. :)
-Nick
-
The following squadrons operated the F-14A+/F-14B:
- VF-11 "Red Rippers"
- VF-32 "Swordsmen"
- VF-74 "Be-Devilers"
- VF-102 "Diamondbacks"
- VF-103 "Sluggers"/"Jolly Rogers"
- VF-142 "Ghostriders"
- VF-143 "Pukin' Dogs"
It's funny, the B-variant was operated exclusively by Atlantic Fleet, while the D-model was operated almost exclusively by Pacific Fleet. Even the squadrons that spent time on both coasts changed between Bs and Ds as they moved from coast to coast.
Don't forget about VF-24 and VF-211 - both Pacific fleet squadrons of CVW-9. :)
But they only completed one cruise before transitioning back to the F-14A. With the force reduction of the early-90s and realization that very few new F-14s would be acquired, the USN decided to consolidate F-14D squadrons in the Pacific fleet and F-14Bs in the Atlantic.
The F-14D only made its final cruise in the Atlantic fleet, moving over to CVW-8 for that last deployment. Otherwise, VF-31 was a long time member of CVW-14 while VF-213 had operated with CVW-11 since the 1960s! Both were Pacific fleet airwings.
-Nick
-
Its those darn J57s - early turbojets and all their problems. There is a huge decrease in the accident rate once the fleet was re-engined, nearly every crash was KC-135A (40 crashes vs 3 for the KC-135R and 2 for the KC-135E).
The early turbojets gave great high altitude cruise speeds, but the were quite underpowered for take-off - requiring things like water injection at higher take-off weights. This left little reserve for things like hot conditions, max gross weights, winds, etc.
Also, this was a early member of the jet age before fatigue life was well understood (and everything was being rapidly replaced by new or better designs - aircraft were meant for short service lives).
For context, from the late 50s-early 60s, ~30% of USN fighter pilots would either die or be seriously injured (permanently removed from flight status) during their tour due to operational accidents. It was a really dangerous time to be a pilot. After reading a compendium of Approach magazine articles, I've concluded that the F-8 Crusader was an absolute death trap!
-Nick
-
F-5 is a nice aircraft, easy to learn, just don't expect 4th-gen multirole capability and performance figures.
+1
The F-5E is a solid all around choice - excellent flight model, conventional controls and instruments (for an American at least), reasonable scope of capabilities (for an aircraft from the 60s-70s), and right at home in NTTR. It lacks systems like INS and the only A-A weapons are AIM-9s and cannon, but there are good aftermarket campaign options and it is fun to fly.
However, it really depends on what you plan to use it for. If you want a fast striker the Viggen is an excellent choice too. It has some unique functionality (which means not all of it works quite right and is getting fixed), but is fast and very capable. The cockpit looks amazing in VR, though the layout is uniquely Swedish and may not be familiar to many users.
I think the Mirage is a decent choice too, but also is awaiting fixes and updates (some significant, like the FM). The cockpit is not as nice as the Viggen or F-5, but it is the most capable full fidelity A-A fighter in DCS (at least for a few more months till the Tomcat is released). I find it fun to fly in general.
Of course, the A-10C is still the king of DCS in terms of level of detail and scope of A-G capabilities (sensors, weapons, and available content). But it is not what comes to mind when most of us think of a "jet". :)
Overall, F-5E is probably the best choice depending on your interests.
-Nick
-
Good to talk to you again, Blacklion!
Does that also mean the post-1994 air wings carried ten Intruders as opposed to the fourteen of yesteryear, given the four extra Intruders were KA-6Ds?
You too CheckGear. :)
From what I can tell, A-6 squadrons were still deploying with 14 airframes, but all were A-6Es.
You're right that the airwing lost a lot of tanking capacity after retiring the KA-6D, but after Desert Storm the Navy started operating much more directly with the USAF and generally utilized their tanking assets as well. This helped quite a bit, but also cost the USN some operational independence. Still, after the Cold War ended the focus was on integrated littoral warfare and the notion of a "blue water" conflict seemed pretty remote.
-Nick
-
Question - the KA-6D was retired in 1994, but the A-6E continued to fly until 1997. The A-6E continued to be used a tanker role.
My question is, was the A-6E essentially outfitted with buddy stores? And did this result in a decrease in the amount of fuel available for tanking?
Yep, just like you described. :)
The KA-6D had an integral hose and drogue built into the belly and carried 5 external tanks. Total fuel carried was around 26,000 lbs.
With the A-6E carrying a buddy store, it still carried 5 external tanks, but the central fuel tank also contained the hose and drogue - reducing the capacity of that central tank. I'm not sure how much capacity was lost, if the entire center tank was just hose/drogue then it could be as much as 3000 lbs less fuel than the KA-6D. So figure somewhere between 1500 to 3000 lbs less fuel carried.
-Nick
-
The hornet is much closer than the f-14 is just watching the development levels that are posted online.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Tomcat's systems seem to be further along than the Hornet's, but the Hornet's artwork is more complete. Hence the perception. :)
-Nick
-
maybe you have the Autopilot stabilizer (SPAK) activated ... turn it off and check again :)
Yes exactly, good advise. :)
One of the many Viggen features far ahead of its time is SPAK - basically a sophisticated stability augmentation and flight control system that uses the Viggen's autopilot. The system seems to have a lot of control authority (including dedicated control surfaces and the ability to add large inputs). It really cleans up the handling, but you can see the fidelity built into the FM by disabling it (green light/button on the left upper panel - just below the glare shield). The handling is quite different with a lot more roll inertia, drift, adverse roll, etc.
-Nick
The B-17
in Western Europe 1944-1945
Posted
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