Swordsman422

Let people make what they want. Don't like it? Don't download it. Want something else or something specific that no one else is making? Download the paint kit and get to work.

Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery. Meaning the F-14 requires a catapult system to launch off the deck and must recover with arresting cables. Kuznetsov is a STOBAR, or Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery carrier. It's not a bug. Just the compatibility hasn't been developed, and I wouldn't hold your breath. You're as likely to get CATOBAR-compatible Su-33s as a STOBAR F-14 or F/A-18. The real jets weren't cross-compatible.

Sure. But Heatblur isn't going to solve it half way, because there are an equal number of people to whom it does matter getting typeface, size, and positioning correct, including Heatblur. It's just gonna take far more effort than can be given priority yet.

I collect flight helmets and gear, and have several APH-6, HGU-33, -55, and -68s. You actually CAN buy an adapter to adapt the helmet and mask comms to computer audio input/output... But it's not something I do. Older helmet liners made of foam-stuffed leather don't breathe very well, so they get pretty stuffy under there. Even newer comfort-fit TPLs are just kinda okay in that they'll absorb the sweat better but remain pretty hot. There is only so far into the realm of immersion I'll go.

Considering Heatblur hadn't originally planned for an Iranian F-14 at all, I think the idea now is that it'll just be the -135 Early with maybe a removable TCS and missile load limits. I wouldn't expect the avionics to be any different from the -135 Early. But I could be wrong. I keep being so lately. It would be a nice surprise if, but that's not a breath I'm gonna hold.

They could, but the issue is that HB wants to represent the F-14's systems correctly and realistically. Same reason they haven't given us a PTID. They don't have docs for it and don't want to just guess at the functions or use inaccurate representation. Whether that's good or bad is subjective, but they're the folks making the call.

Probably because the museum jets they used for 3D scans didn't have their pylons off when they were scanned. And any rate, you are not wrong to supposed that the retort would be that fleet jets of the variants we have modeled didn't typically fly without their tanks. Nor is that retort unearned. But options are nice and foresight is always good to have.

Due to an oversight with the initial 3D model, removal of the drop tank pylons will never be modeled. The same is probably also true of the glove pylons. What I wish we could do is model 1B and 8B present but empty and choose which pylon is there.

I just try to avoid this situation by never using a Fox 1 missile as a BVR weapon. If they're within 10 miles, I switch to P-STT, flip the ACM switch, and position for a Sparrow shot. If they're in the transition zone where the missile might not reach them before Jester would flip to P-STT himself, it's not worth the risk of a wasted shot. That said, if an AIM-7 is being guided by ownship, it would be nice if Jester refrained from making the switch to P-STT until the TTI + a margin has run out.

I'm pulling for some day to have an F-4B, or at least an F-4N that can be disguised as one. As much as I malign the old, bright, gull grey over white liveries on the F-14, I absolutely love them on the Phantom.

USS Forrestal made 4 deployments with F-14s as part of CVW-6. She only ever carried VF-11 and VF-31. https://www.navysite.de/cvn/cv59deploy.htm

The dielectric panels were positioned just behind and between the engine nozzles, so they experienced flutter and fatigue cracking from the engines. Removing them solved that problem, but created aerodynamic drag that decreased the performance of the aircraft. The new standard boat tail was introduced with Block 80 jets and retained on later models.

And how quickly you need it.

From my understanding, the dielectric panels were removed because their position right next to the engine nozzles made them vulnerable to warping and fatigue cracking. Unfortunately, removal increased drag. The individual Tomcats I find truly interesting are the Frankenstein jets the reserves were flying in the late 80's and early 90s, like 159025, which by the end of life had all the features of a modern F-14 (NACA gun vents, TCS pod, up-to-date nose probe arrangement) but still the old beaver tail and aft lighting set-ups. And it wasn't like this jet or others like it got shuffled off to the reserves after there were enough of the updated fuselages to go around. These birds stayed with the fleet for a while. 159025 was with VF-11 for a while in the 1980s.

I'd... kinda been working on one on and off, waiting for the -135 Early to come out. Wasn't sure I was ever going to release it and probably don't need to now anyway.

Matt Lawlor at the Top Gun Props Forum made a reference diagram for modelers. Might be useful here.

I think this is what they're meaning to do, make an animation argument to exclude the TCS in favor of the ALQ-100. As a side note, don't confuse a mid-70s 90/95-GR with an early 70's 70/75-GR. That early F-14 is visibly structurally different than the jets delivered to the USN or Iran after 1975. We'll most likely never have the initial service Tomcats, as interesting as that would be.

This cockpit is an F-14A, which did get the PTID but no sparrowhawk HUD or JDAM capability. The jet in the background is in the livery of VF-154 circa 2003.

Subjectively, this is not a big selling point for me. But I otherwise agree that the JFK would be a good addition.

Yeah, I'd vote Kitty Hawk-class for a couple reasons. First, the F-4, F-14, and A-6 all operated from them across their lifetimes. Second, while Enterprise would be cool, which version? She underwent an overhaul 1979-1982 and lost the beehive array atop the island. Unless we get both versions of her, someone is going to complain that either the F-4 Phantom or later model F-14s won't look right on her deck. The Kitty Hawks had some changes over time of course, but not quite as drastic as changed the entire profile of the ship.

I fall under the umbrella of "everyone." I'd rather have the Strike Eagle and no option to remove the CFTs.

Sure. But we have to remember to tell Jester to stow it before trapping, lest it strike the ignition for the ejection seat.

That's not a TCS. It's an early IRST system. It was used in the very early Tomcat days, found to be not worth the weight or drag, and abandoned in favor of just the ALQ receiver by itself before the TCS as we know it was introduced in the early 1980s. You can actually tell from the length of the gun blister that this F-14 is a late test model or VERY early production model, probably a 60GR or 65GR.

The flight model was updated to be more accurate, but the guidance is still broken. From my understanding, we're waiting for ED to complete the guidance programming to be more accurate. It's gonna be in an interrim format for a while.

Heh. I can honestly say without facetiousness that non-US F-4Es (spec. Israel, Japan, and Greece) are FAR more interesting to me than USAF. I believe that a couple of those nations have tectonically active areas.