Baz000

I did have full XT (not empty XT) and 6,000 lbs internal and it didn't add up to max trap of 54k. We need to be uniform with our testing or of course we will all be getting different results. Minimize the testing variables between all of us by setting standard criteria. For example in all my tests before your mission I had gun ammo set to 100%.

Am I doing something wrong? Is it me? Or is this an intended feature to have to "wrestle the wings" or did I come across a potential bug that the wing sweep handle doesn't seat into the spider detent when it ought to?

Let's experiment! Clean (no pallets) F-14B using sLYFa's mission, 62% internal fuel at max trap of 54k gives me an on-speed AOA of 135 kts IAS same exact plane but loaded with 6 AIM-54A-Mk47 missiles and 4 pallets in the tunnel and empty external fuel tanks and 23% internal fuel at max trap of 54k gives me an on-speed AOA of 138 kts IAS

I tried the mission as downloaded (without any editing) and I got 130 kts as onspeed AOA with how you have the aircraft setup in the mission, which is not anything like the 3 you noted above, I have XT with fuel and as shown in this image, loading your mission. Your second loadout I get if I follow exactly what you said is this: But I am not at max trap at 54,000 lbs I am short of that putting 6,000 lbs of fuel internal I think part of our problem is "what is a clean aircraft?" when I load that mission I have 4 Phoenix pallets loaded in the tunnel (to me this isn't "clean" exactly) How are you configuring the aircraft for landing in your tests? I'm doing my configuration as if I am trapping onto the boat. Something interesting in DCS is how depending on what pylon you choose to remove it changes what Phoenix pallets are removed and I wonder if something funny is happening there depending on what station you remove.

Same result here, too when I try using AP... Get into an immediate 1,000 fpm descent even if I am trimmed level when activating AP. For now boys, gonna have to use your trim as your AP... Will be very good practice tho.

You aren't considering additional drag from adding stores. Weight Isn't the only impact If you have XT tanks installed you have more drag (honestly forget if induced or parasitic but I wanna say induced) vs if don't have them installed. More drag = higher IAS approach speed Simple test: take a completely clean plane and add internal fuel only to gross weight of 54k lbs, fly on-speed fully dirty and note the IAS. Do the same but put 6 Phoenix and adjust internal fuel (33%) to get gross weight of 54k lbs, fly on-speed fully dirty and note the IAS. What do you predict will happen? IAS will be the same for both? Or will one be faster IAS than the other at on-speed AOA of 15 cockpit units? Remember, your total lifting power is coming from the engines, wings and "pancake" it isn't just a vector pointing straight up perpendicular to the wings that generates your overall lift vs an opposite vector representing gravity/weight. You have thrust and drag to take into account too when trying to determine total overall lifting force, not just only the force of the wings. Do the wings generate much lift if you fly at 80 kts? Not really, the wings need air moving over them to generate more lift. So, conversely if you fly at 300 kts your wings are generating way more lift. It is the same wings, nothing changed except the thrust that was added, drag works against thrust. Means you need more thrust to overcome drag. I found these cool NASA pictures to help explain, picture your F-14 at on-speed AOA fully dirty and in level flight... It is going to look something like the image "forces in a climb" with your nose pitched up like that, except you aren't climbing because all of the forces on the plane are balancing like in image "balanced forces" the F-14 is still moving in a straight line. Except the nose is hiked up and if you add power in this regime you will climb and speed up depending on how much power you add. Pitch for power and throttle for altitude comes into play here for smaller magnitude corrections. If you give a large power correction without a corresponding stick correction it will effect both your speed (AOA) and altitude. (rate of climb or descent)

This sounds like the exact same problem I have now with my Reverb G2, I'm sending mine in for RMA to HP.

Various IAS for on-speed AOA for me with max trap of 54,000 lbs (within 200 lbs margin) in the A model with following A-A loadouts, I used the mission editor with unlimited fuel so weight stayed constant (no fuel burn) to set the internal fuel weights for loadouts: All tests with full gun ammo 200mm HEI, AN/ALE-39 set to 60 flares 0 chaff, fill LAU-138 with chaff selected. Chaff and Flare in the payload editor set to 140 chaff and 60 flare and greyed out so you can't change it. ***x4 AIM-9M, x4 AIM-7M, empty external fuel tanks (internal fuel set to 51%)= 140 kts as indicated inside the cockpit ***without tanks and internal fuel set to 53%= 138 kts so 2 delta x4 AIM-9M, x2 AIM-7M,(in the tunnel, sta 6 and 3) empty external fuel tanks (internal fuel set to 58%)= 138 kts without tanks and internal fuel set to 59%= 138 kts so 0 delta x4 AIM-9M, x2 AIM-7M (in the tunnel, sta 4 and 5) empty external fuel tanks (internal fuel set to 58%)= 138 kts without tanks and internal fuel set to 59%= 138 kts so 0 delta x2 AIM-9M, x2 AIM-7M (on wings, tunnel clean), empty external fuel tanks (internal fuel set to 59%) and stations 5 and 3 pairs of Phoenix pallets removed= 138ish kts the IAS needle is slightly less than 140 kts without tanks and internal fuel set to 61%= 138 kts, so a 2 kts delta x2 AIM-9M, x2 AIM-7M, x4 AIM-54A-Mk47, empty external fuel tanks (internal fuel set to 35%)= 138ish kts, definitely the needle is a tad below the 140 kts mark without tanks and internal fuel set to 37%=138ish kts so a 0 delta x2 AIM-9M, x3 AIM-7M (one in the tunnel), x2 AIM-54-Mk47, empty external fuel tanks (internal fuel set to 44%)= 140 kts without tanks and internal fuel set to 46%= 140 kts so 0 delta x6 AIM-54-Mk47, empty external fuel tanks (internal fuel set to 31%)= 140 kts without tanks and internal fuel set to 33%= 138 kts so 2 kts delta In all tests the aircraft was configured full dirty as if landing onto the boat (SP, gear, flaps full, DLC, hook all engaged) ***= I thought I had found a possible 10 kts disparity in this test with no XT = 10 kts slower IAS but I took steps to see if I could reproduce the result and I wasn't able to. I was only able to replicate this exact result when I had my DLC disabled... What probably happened was I thought I had engaged DLC when I most likely did not, now when I test I take a brief look at external view to see if the aircraft is properly configured as desired. Conclusion is the numbers have very little change between external tanks empty vs not equipped and internal fuel added to bring the plane to 54k gross total weight. (using the mission editor numbers at least) The numbers i'm getting are hardly showing any significance between same gross weight on-speed AOA between having empty external tanks vs not having any tanks.

I had an idea come to mind, maybe the behavior in DCS of the external tanks starting empty by loading the plane with the empty external tanks vs having the tanks started full and burning or dumping the fuel from the external tanks is possibly exhibiting different behavior in DCS? i'll give it a test and see for myself if possibly that may be it.

That was also along the lines of what I was thinking too, what if one fails to light etc... But if you are faced with plunging into the water and subsequently having the ship run over you vs a chance the AB fails to light or doesn't light symmetrically I mean which of the two would you pick? I'd take my chances with the AB. The B has that asymmetry limiter because of the sudden massive yaw rate build up being produced by single engine failure or blow out being determined to be too great for the pilot to fix by kicking their boot in those critical phases of flight like takeoff or landing. They basically came up with, it is frankly highly impossible for the pilot to correct for this and to limit aircraft to MIL in certain critical phases. The A is a bit of a different story tho, if the pilot can detect failure quickly enough they can use their boot to compensate the building of increasing magnitude of yaw rate, I guess the onset force compared to the B isn't as sudden or large in magnitude due to the thrust difference between the TF-30 and GE-110 engines. Assuming you want the other engine still at MAX power, mind you. Which in certain circumstances you would... In DCS, what I got into the habit of doing if experiencing a compressor stall and hitting the ground or the boat isn't an immediate problem... I bring both engines back on power to eliminate the thrust asymmetry and then slowly bring them up in power after the alarms have stopped and the small person with the sledgehammer in my air intake stops pounding it lol. That has become kinda my knee-jerk reaction to it. I am worried all the time tho that I could induce a compressor stall on the good engine by doing that if already I have an issue with one engine it seems logical a issue could potentially develop with the other, right?

The master caution really is a pain tho, especially because there is no alert sound played in the pilot helmet... It is just a flashing light, at least it was centrally located and within frontal field of view tho.

True, but there is also this thing that is called EMCON and the carrier can change its lighting conditions as well.

Reminds me of the "you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink" idea. I noticed the long term phugoid when flying around with just the gear and flaps as discussed a few days ago. Is there also a short duration phugoid oscillation that kinda gets coupled leading you into the long term too? Also, would it make logical sense to think that with the SB and DLC engaged this may add more longitudinal stability and somewhat dampens the magnitude and/or duration of phugoid oscillation? I guess because of the added drag and slower approach speed.(so the wings produce a bit less lift, compared to without) Considering that the SB is imparting a symmetrical force upon deployment (I'm assuming because of the clam shell design) the only other thing I could think of is that DLC engagement coupled also with the horizontal stab deflection is changing these wing lift forces, so there is probably more longitudinal stability and I would stab at a guess of less oscillation if configured that way... I mean, just thinking about the wing surfaces. Providing power corrections are not wild and all over the place, which would certainly help to induce said oscillations. I'm guessing in the fleet you guys had some rough idea gauge you would use when rolling out on downwind and completing the before landing checklist, some RPM or FF or FTIT value to roughly set each engine to in order to get configured and to on speed AOA at the proper altitude. And the reason I say that is because it wouldn't make too much sense to trim to desired AOA while descending 200 ft and the engines are still at idle, because the moment you start applying power you're going to need to re-trim also, you take a risk in falling behind the power curve and the engines need time to spool up. And we don't want to blow through our target start altitude entering the groove. Always is said that if you have a good start entry, you're setting yourself up for the likelihood of a good trap on the boat. That is something constantly heard. I was wondering something about the A model in particular, I know in the B model you're supposed to go to MIL power when the landing gear hits the deck in case of a bolter. How did that go in the A? Is it one of those "it depends" things? My best guess for the A they went full AB same as a cat shot?

I don't understand the problem? Don't you expect him to do his job back there? Or are you saying that he is doing too much of a job back there?

I wasn't able to listen to the sounds but doesn't it seem like it sounds like a hand cranking something or a hand pump of some kind?

I have noticed like a hand pump or crank sound coming from back there

Seems like I have the same problem with those and the master caution light in the day time too, but I can see it just fine at night in DCS. I dunno if gamma settings make a difference but I have mine set to 1.8 from the default 2.2 that washes a lot of color out.

If I remember what read a long time ago correctly, wasn't it like pilots were not even permitted to use auto throttle until 100 manually flown traps... And certainly not while you were in training, this was a fleet thing from my understanding. Damn, or am I thinking about the ACLS? yeah i'm aware, I use OVGME for skins... Tho I must say the mods have gotten better about not installing inside the DCS root directory of the install and going into the saved games folder instead (it used to not be like that)

I'm not gonna lie, I came from the Hornet to the Tomcat... And i'll tell you what I am very glad I did because I am learning so much more flying the Tomcat than I ever did flying the Hornet (maybe because i'm not actually flying the Hornet but i'm more of a "voting member" so to speak) If you really want to know how I overcame the horrifying task of trimming the F-14, I picked up my FAA Aircraft flying handbook and gave it a good read, I didn't really find much of my answer in there so I opened my next FAA book I had on my shelf... And I remember you telling me that flying the F-14 had alot to do with instrument flying and to be honest... Before now I had not read much in my instument flying handbook until this point because alot of the instruments discussed(or so I thought until I opened it and started giving the analog instruments section a good read) like FMS and TCAS and etc didn't really apply to us in DCS and was more airliner related. There was something in that book that kinda clicked in my head when I was reading about flying using the analog instruments and it translated well to DCS. For one, I had to stop being ham-fisted on the stick and use distinct pressure instead either fore aft or side to side to get the aircraft to move precisely where I wanted. And another thing was actually incorporating an instrument scan routine and changing the scan depending on what parameter i'm changing on the aircraft with my control or power inputs. But always first and foremost referencing the VDI display because it shows the most immediate change in attitude. And then the next to last thing was stabilizing the aircraft in all of its parameters... Stable speed, altitude, attitude, configuration, only giving slight power corrections as needed to keep a constant speed. And the final thing was learning how to trim properly by gently relaxing the pressure I'm applying on the stick (so it returns back to center in a controlled non ham-fisted manner) trying to minimize displacement as much as possible and only using slight pressures instead while applying generally nose up trim. But when I would relax the stick near almost right at the center point but not quite there yet... I would see, damn the nose is starting to droop... Immediately start applying the same magnitude of pressure I had on the stick as before and giving nose up trim, the goal being that when I take my physical hand off the stick in front of me... The plane in DCS doesn't move, and it is hard to see in DCS unless you have some frame of reference you use like the instruments but I generally look at the horizon relative to the cockpit frame. Anyways, after I learned all that... Flying the plane in that trimmed state is very easy with just slight pressures on the stick... And of course it takes practice too, but you have to understand your reactions or over-reactions on the controls are having either desired or undesired effects on the flying of the aircraft. The nice thing about the FAA handbooks is it also explains "common errors" that are observed and offers ways to solve them too. I think chief among them was I was changing my power setting far too much, I had to set it and forget it for a bit so everything could stabilize and then adjust accordingly to hold say 350 kts for example. Oh, also another thing was trying to work on one flight parameter at a time instead of trying to fix everything at once(with-in reason obviously)... Everything has an effect on each other I looked at it kinda like the idea of stack, line, spacing in formation flying where you prioritize each dimension to reduce variables. I think there is alot of a disconnect between IRL and sim too, for one thing you don't feel the trim forces on the stick, but for another... When I flew a 1 hr intro flight in a T-34B you could barely move the stick an inch in displacement without it wanting to flip the airplane upside-down. I seem to remember the controls were really really touchy (maybe they did that intentionally since it was a traininer, dunno) I barely had to move the stick to get the plane to move and I also didn't feel like I had to fight air against the control surfaces either and muscle the controls around.

I'm not really a fan of mods, for one thing if you have any you don't get any troubleshooting support with DCS until you eliminate them as a potential cause... And my DCS already gives me plenty of problems at times without introducing any new ones to it.

This is the problem with DCS, they just throw you right into the cockpit of a high performance F-14 or name any other front line fighter... Without doing the pre-requisite work on first learning how to fly and understanding things and gaining basic foundational skills. In our case we need like a crash course Is there a good module currently available we could fly in DCS to "prep" us for what amazing wonders wait for us in the F-14? I got my FAA handbooks sitting on the shelf, i'm tempted to dust them off and try mastering each thing in there 1 step at a time. I will say this tho, I finally got the hang of trimming the F-14 in level flight finally... You have to treat the wings moving like a configuration change... Now, I need to work on it in the landing configuration and trying to hold onspeed AOA.

I've mainly heard of Brits doing the set altimeter to zero thing when flying from the same field they intend to land back at.

Because the way it works for US pilots is field elevation not at what in. HG. is the ground.... And all of the aeronautical charts and various approach plates etc all use barometric altitude to convey things like elevations or radio towers, etc, etc... It isn't a problem unless someone wants to do their own thing (say setting it so the ground says zero) generally speaking everybody in the air operating around the same airspace are supposed to be on the same page in terms of altimeter settings, that is kind of an important one to get right and be on the same page on everyone else around you with... Very important for deconfliction and following ATC directives for instance. I get it that people across the pond do it different...

Do you mean the Phoenix pallets that mount under the "tunnel"