Baz000

Oh, okay thanks much... Didn't know.

"Estimated maximum SR-71 launch speed and altitude" Damn! They launched that thing off of a SR-71 Blackbird!? Crazy! Or planned a contingency to launch off a SR-71

SE= single engine, right? When you say SE fly away Not sure what SFC stands for tho -surface fuel consumption? in addition didn't the B in AB also cause temp problems for the JBDs too? The A didn't get an asymmetric thrust limiter, but that was introduced later with the B to prevent asymmetric AB light off, right? Not being in AB for takeoff saves like a crap ton of fuel, right... Like 4x more fuel flow at AB than what is used at MIL

Are you sure those aren't A models? Because the engine exhaust shape doesn't look like Bs like we have in DCS.

Found another one, you can see the TCS light under the chin very well in this one https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7CkWTq9YAM Also, here you see a close up shot of the Tomcat tail with the light on towards the end of this video

See, watching this user made DCS video... The takeoff behavior looks amazingly spot on!(although he is using maneuvering flaps on takeoff and not full flaps) Just watch how she looks like she lifts herself into the air and the main gear struts extend... Just stunning! Bravo Zulu Heatblur Team! But the landing touchdown behavior ashore still needs maybe some more tweaking to match what you see a lot of videos IRL show of the different landing behaviors(sticking the landing similar to a carrier trap and doing like a flared landing with the nose wheel propped up).

I just tried using the autopilot at 30k ft and i'm unable to... Every time I activate it (I am able to activate it) it is like it turns into HAL and pushes my nose down at 1,000 fpm despite activating it trimmed at level flight or around +-200 fpm... Still has issues that needs to be ironed out at high altitudes I think. Also, sometimes I feel like the autopilot is disengaged but the plane still feels like it is engaged when I try to fly it with the stick.

seems the only problem of the aircraft in the replay is the heading, at least in the air... On the ground the B model takeoff track seemed to work fine, and the A model only when I used AB at zone 5... Otherwise, MIL power takeoff on the replay never even showed the aircraft get into the air.

Apparently the wheel brakes should be able to hold the aircraft at zone 1 stage of AB on both engines with cold brakes (as far as I know... DCS doesn't simulate hot or cold brakes)... Currently in DCS the brakes don't even hold you at MIL on a runway, you just start slowly rolling forward. Provided we have carbon brakes on our late A model currently, because they apparently changed the brakes they used throughout the years of service of the Tomcat. "The capacities of the wheelbrake assemblies are sufficient to restrain the aircraft in a static condition on a dry surface with zone No. 1 afterburner (nozzle position 2) set on both engines. The minimum hydroplaning speed for the main tires on a wet runway is approximately 90 knots." "The static torque of carbon brakes is significantly less than earlier brakes used on F−14A aircraft at the same hydraulic supply pressure. Therefore, the pilot must press much harder on the brake pedals to hold the aircraft static at high−power settings. With cold carbon brakes, approximately 75 to 100 pounds of pedal force will hold the aircraft in a static condition with zone 1 afterburner (nozzle position 2) set on both engines. If carbon brakes have been heated up by a full−stop landing, and for about 45 minutes thereafter, they will probably not hold the aircraft static with military power set on both engines even with the parking brake set. In this case, 75 to 100 pounds of pedal force will hold the aircraft static with zone 1 afterburner (nozzle position 2) set on one engine and idle power set on the other. In all cases, holding the aircraft static at high power settings depends on adequate runway and tire conditions. Degraded conditions such as wet runways or worn tires may result in tire skid at high power settings." I tried both on the A, setting the power to zone 1 on both engines while holding the brakes down... Plane starts sliding. Tried holding brakes down while powering only 1 engine to zone 1 and kept the other at idle and alternated between the left and right engine... Still sliding and now the nose points in a different direction too. Tried just having brakes on and both engines at MIL and the plane slides too. Dunno if intended behavior or if WIP or what, just letting you guys know what I observed. Didn't have any degraded conditions of wet runway, etc... Maybe I had worn tires? I tried it also for the B model, and same behavior happens, can't hold it at MIL on both engines and can't hold it with 1 engine at AB and the other idle "The capacities of the wheelbrake assemblies are sufficient to restrain the aircraft in a static condition on a dry surface with 20-percent AB set on both engines. The minimum hydroplaning speed for the main tires on a wet runway is approximately 90 knots." "The pilot must apply maximum pressure on the brake pedals to hold the aircraft static at MIL. If carbon brakes have been heated up by a full-stop landing, and for about 45 minutes thereafter, they will probably not hold the aircraft static with military power set on both engines even with the parking brake set. In this case, 75 to 100 pounds of pedal force will hold the aircraft static with afterburner set on one engine and idle power set on the other. In all cases, holding the aircraft static at high power settings depends on adequate runway and tire conditions. Degraded conditions such as wet runways or worn tires may result in tire skid at high power settings."

I just wanted to update this real quick, when I wrote the above... ^^ It was before trying out the latest patch I notice flying her now with the latest patch, the takeoff behavior has improved quite a bit with full flaps down where she lifts off gently from the ground and won't "balloon into the air" tried it in MIL and AB on the A model and in MIL only in the B model... So, very glad to see that matches the above videos very well now! I'm still experiencing this "ballooning" tendency upon landing and trying to do touch and goes and I wonder if the reason is because of the plane being trimmed to onspeed AOA of 15 cockpit units? So, takeoff from ashore seems good right now... Landing and touch and go behavior seems like I still have some kind of excess lift inside of ground effect or something, and maybe in the pattern too without DLC and speedbrake deployment (like on go around when you power to MIL)

I notice something maybe unusual with the pitch/power too especially on takeoff / trying a touch and go. at 10:27 is a landing (dunno if full stop or if touch and go) at 12:47 is a takeoff that looks very effortless and somewhat graceful (pilot isn't fighting the stick forward to keep the plane from "ballooning") at 16:07 is a touch and go (and again looks like no tendency to balloon or float when entering into ground effect, just kisses the main wheels onto the ground and gets up into the air again) again looks very graceful and precise. And on the climb out, seems to not be fighting the plane from shooting up into the air and is flying holding probably 15 cockpit units of AOA and then turns to enter the pattern again probably. also here at 08:05 is takeoff and 51:20 another takeoff (tho they say minimum speed I think, followed by a "dirty roll") a landing at 58:50 (this landing behavior looks like what we currently have in DCS, but you see spoiler deployment because power is brought to idle... I wonder if in DCS it is acting like there is spoiler deployment even if you don't bring the power to idle and you intend to do a touch and go by adding power) you also see the stabs go TEU just right before touchdown (I wonder if pilot pulled back on the stick as tho to flare the landing? another landing at 01:06:45 where the landing looks alot different and smoother and graceful compared to DCS currently, similar to the first landing at 10:27... He keeps the nose up for a while until bringing it to the deck too, spoilers are also deployed... It looks like the pilot is giving it alot of aft stick, based on how the stabs are moving. It could also just be my piloting technique too, IDK?

I keep trying to replay tracks of my landings so I can see them from other view points, etc My Tomcat in the replays never seems to land on the runway and always seems to fly down the wrong heading than what I actually flew in the flight in the saved track. I don't know if it is a difference between how magnetic vs true heading is coded or what.

Yeah, I think it was maybe the paint too... Well, you see the Tomcat supersonic interceptor airframe was designed to turn like that so it could give the Ruskie Bear bomber crews a good view of the Phoenix missiles loaded inside the tunnel. After performing such a "look under my belly" bat turn the Bear bomber tail gunner would answer in kind with a "look at her belly, comrade" playmate of the month centerfold picture in kind. After both planes were finished with this interception dance, the supersonic interceptor Tomcat would return to the boat to then land at around 125-ish knots onto an area that only gave 2-1/2 feet of wing clearance if off centerline of the landing area and roughly 300 ft long... Stopping only when grabbing a 2 1/2 inch cable with a hook that was able to slow the plane down at maximum power to a dead stop. Yeah, purely a supersonic belly flashing "look what I carry" interceptor indeed... Here, learn something about the Tomcat here during a demo at a Miramar NAS airshow from the 80s listen to the Navy narrator of the demo flight and learn some things.

So, it isn't just some camera optics trick? The lights do actually stay continuously "on" and pulse? Rather than flash on-off like we have currently depicted in DCS?

The AOA indexer lights are still bugged and won't show unless you have the AOA indexer lights cranked to at least 5. But the green chevron shows below the light setting of 5, but is the only one that does ( had the mission start with them set to 2 setting and was only getting a flashing green chevron but not a yellow donut or red chevron)

I'd imagine at best, maneuvering flaps as deployed automatically by the jet?(or manual override by the pilot) If the Aux flaps are down too, then it isn't the maneuvering flaps... It is impressive how he turns like that to chase after the F-4(the F-4 can't make a turn like that F-14) If you look at his stab movement on takeoff (assuming his stabs were positioned in the same position shown on the taxi scene just prior) It looks like he just rotates the nose up and eases back pressure on the stick once positive rate is established. (You see the stabs deflect TEU and then TE stabs come down a bit as back stick is relaxed upon rotation but at no point do you see TE come down so far to a point that the LE shows up like as tho the pilot is jamming his stick forward and fighting the plane from climbing in a "ballooning" state. I can't tell if he is in burners, I'd take an educated guess that in the interest of conserving fuel for the actual training, they are probably just in MIL. I wish our bird in DCS could takeoff ashore so gracefully with full flaps, and do touch and goes like that, which looks so smooth... His nose wheel never even touches the ground. In DCS, I can't even land the Tomcat on just the mains without the nose coming to the ground immediately.

Honestly, I can't tell... I'm guessing you are wondering how he is reversing his turn so quickly to attack the F-4? Really interesting touch and go landing only on the rear wheels only at 16:08(doesn't look like any float in ground effect or excessive "ballooning" in the climb for the go around... Looks like he is just flying to hold AOA in the climb prior to the turn) Takeoff at full flaps at 12:45 look how nice and smoothly the plane gracefully gets into the air, again... No massive ballooning tendency pitching the nose up. I don't know what these planes carry as internal fuel loads... Clearly, they are clean jets with nothing externally mounted. The best I'd guess is the fuselage tanks are full and internal wing tanks are empty. Also notice the refueling probe covers are missing.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/climb.html https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/exthrst.html https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/fwrat.html https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-thrust-to-weight-ratio-in-simple-terms "Why We Care If an engine produces more thrust than the vehicle weighs, it can overcome gravity and accelerate when pointed straight up. (Thrust overcomes weight, lifting it straight up from the Earth.) If an engine produces less thrust than the vehicle weighs, the vehicle must rely on something else to overcome weight. This is usually from aerodynamic lift. (Thrust moves the vehicle forward, creating air flow. Air flowing over the wings creates lift, which helps... lift... the aircraft into the air, as long as there is enough lift to overcome the weight.) Examples Saturn V rocket, Stage 1 = 94.1 (LOTS of thrust to put stuff in orbit) F-15 = 1.06 (with full thrusties on... a.k.a. afterburner, it can accelerate straight up. Without burner, uses aerodynamic lift.) A-10 = 0.49 (will decelerate fast if pointed straight up. Relies on aerodynamic lift to get and stay airborne.)" Ask, and ye shall receive Seek and ye shall find Knock, and the door will be opened unto you https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/a-4.htm https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm F-14A: 20,900 pounds (9,405 kg) static thrust per engine; F-14B and F-14D: 27,000 pounds (12,150 kg) per engine vs. Single, Pratt & Whitney, J-52-P-408A non-afterburning, turbojet engine that develops 11,220 pounds of thrust on the A-4 F-14 maximum takeoff weight 72,900 pounds (32,805 kg) F-14 maximum payload Up to 13,000 pounds F-14 wingspan 64 feet (19 meters) unswept, 38 feet (11.4 meters) swept A-4 Maximum takeoff weight: 24,500 pounds A-4 Wingspan: 26 ft 6 in provided FAS is giving out correct numbers this means a single F-14B engine alone could theoretically provide the A-4 excess thrust at maximum takeoff weight to have in excess 2,500 pounds of thrust available. but the A-4 didn't have that, it had a Pratt & Whitney, J-52-P-408A non-afterburning, turbojet engine that develops 11,220 pounds of thrust. So it is at a deficit of approximately 13,000 pounds of thrust at maximum takeoff weight. the F-14 when empty weights about around 10,000 pounds less than 2 A-4s at maximum takeoff weight loading. the F-14 also has just under x3 the wingspan of the A-4 when unswept and still a larger wingspan when swept back The majority of this discussion over the last 2 pages has revolved primarily around the aerodynamic lifting forces imparted on the wings predominately. But, the F-14 used several different simultaneously combined elements to generate it's incredible pitch rate and ability to climb (at least for 70s aircraft design) The sheer brute force thrust provided by x2 afterburning engines, the large wingspan, the lifting force of the "pancake" area and the large moving stabs which are larger than the wings on some plane designs. all of these come together like pieces of a puzzle, or if you like... Like the different parts of an orchestra playing a symphony of smacking other aircraft around dogfighting in the sky. If you don't think the F-14 could dogfight effectively in the right skilled hands, then you don't know the F-14 .really. So, again... Let's ask the question 2 F-14s go into a zoom everything is identical except one is 20% heavier... Who will zoom faster? And who will zoom the highest? If they start together in formation at whatever engine power setting they were both stabilized in formation with (hint, they aren't at the same engine RPMs, one has more than the other) and they both used the same pull and hold the same pitch in the climb. Maybe this is some kind of USNTPS joke, like a version of which came first... The Chicken or the Egg? We haven't really even started to talk about the meat and potatoes of "thrust to weight" or "wing loading" Why can't a T-38 win a fight starting dead on the 6 of a F-14, F-14 in a completely defensive situation?... If the F-14 breaks hard into him, levels his wings and plugs the burners in and pitches up into a climb. The T-38 can't follow him into the zoom, why? Same reason why one F-14 will zoom faster and higher than the other in our original question. Someone has more E than the other, despite being in identical airframes. I use the T-38 situation as an example to highlight the difference in energy available vs maneuverability capabilities at said energy state. (Granted they have different airframes and thus lift generated by the wings) But the T-38 is way way lighter than a F-14! So why'd the T-38 not be able to follow the zoom? When you understand the principal of why this ^^ you will understand how to answer Victory205's original question using the same airframes. To further solidify my point, the F-14 maximum takeoff weight is 72,900 pounds are the wings on the F-14 when fully extended forwards generating at least a minimum 72,900 pounds of lifting force? Or are there more variables at play here? Even the new F-14 pilots were surprised by how the plane could perform.

It tells me the same exact physics applies to a dive as does a climb they are merely the inverse of one another. Much like for example the concept of the "energy egg" In the case he used as a theoretical example, he stated one plane is 20% heavier than the other... He practically told all of us right there that they have different thrust to weight ratio.

Because of the same reason that two identical aircraft with one having more of an internal fuel load than the other, given the same exact parameters as Victory205 stated would have one overshoot the other if they were in a dive rather than a climb. If you fly in formation with someone in DCS and they are your wingman and they have significantly more fuel than you and you chop your throttles to idle and open your speedbrakes... And he does the same at the exact same time as you, he still will overshoot you and pass you because he has way more inertia to have to kill on his plane than you did. The heavier aircraft does not accelerate nor decelerate like the other aircraft does, there is a difference between the two of them perhaps only marginal and perhaps not and it is significant? So, how could the inverse not be true when in a climb? lets say one Tomcat has 10,000 lbs internal fuel and the other has 12,000 lbs (that should be 20% difference in internal fuel) who will travel faster in a dive? And who would hit the ground or the hard deck first? Thrust to weight is different lol... How can it not be different when one aircraft has a 20% difference in weight? What has more thrust to weight? A F-14 or a A-4 Skyhawk?

You didn't fly into any time warps by any chance chasing Zeros?

Noticing in alot of F-14 videos I see the stabs look like they are fully deflected like as tho the pilot is holding the stick aft... I found a post a while ago that explained it had to do with the system the flight controls used and the inertia imparted on them upon the cat launch, etc... I don't know what you guys think, but to me even if it was a cosmetic only external effect to see those stabs deflect, it would bring alot of life and authenticity to seeing Tomcats launching off the decks in DCS. To me, part of the thing that gave the Tomcat a characteristic "look" when it would be shot off the cat was those stabs moving the way they did. Looked like the jet was trying to get ready to pounce to be honest with you. Then I found this short clip of the Su-33 so it looks like it may be possible to do within the DCS engine, because I guess the Su-33 by ED does it? It would really give the Tomcat it classic deck look and character if on cat shot those stabs would move like we see in so many videos of it.

I know for civilian aircraft for example, the FAA has specific lighting standards that they be visible for a minimum of X miles (forget the number specifically but I think 3 or 5 miles rings a bell)... No idea if the Navy just uses the same FAA standards or they came up with their own. I think in general in DCS as a whole the external lighting has been very hard to see from farther away... Though in the recent months it has been getting alot better and it is starting to look far more authentic. I think up close they are starting to look good in DCS, it is when you are farther away that is the problem... Which is kinda the whole point of them as you said, "to be seen."

Man! "it depends" is the typical fighter pilot answer lol Honestly, I do disagree with you... If you turn it around and say it is a dive... Who gets to the ground faster and gets there first? I think the same principle applies but in reverse for a climb.

So, i've been watching alot of Tomcat videos and google image searches lately and I noticed something that looked like a potential disparity between the external lighting intensity on the real bird as well as the way the anti collision beacons look. I'm aware of the fact that you can account for alot of this because of camera optics and phenomenon to do with shutter speeds and etc... However, I noticed some patterns emerge when I looked carefully enough. For one, it looks as though the anti-collision beacons on the top of the tails possibly don't really actually "flash" it looks like they are always on in a steady state and "pulse" in intensity when switched on. Also, during the day time it looks like the intensity of it in DCS is quite dim compared to what you can see for example in this video. I can't speak to the TCS light under the chin, I would think it would work much the same way as the tail lighting. In this particular night cat shots video you can see it really pronounced too, notice that the Hornet tail strobe is visible later in the video too Also, to further state my point... I have yet to find a single night time image of a Tomcat with lights activated that does not show the red tail lights on as well, which leads me to further postulate that these particular lights in reality were constantly in an on state and not flashing on and off... But rather Pulsing in light intensity to give the visual effect of a beacon. The only time you see these lights not on is if the plane is blacked out and running dark in the images. To my second point, of the white position light on the port tail... In DCS it looks far too dim, again comparatively to images and video. So, dunno if my observation makes any sense or if cameras are just playing tricks etc... But i'm just pointing out my observations.