Swordsman422

I'd rather get a Navy Phantom, and specifically the F-4B and its variants, which did most of the MiG killing over Vietnam. However, the F-4E was the most widely exported variant and aside USAF would also cover Australia, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Japan, Spain, Germany, and South Korea. A B would only cover USN and USMC, and the USAF evaluation copies. A J, pretty much the same and the RAF. F-4Js in FAA service were re-engined with the RR Spey and had an extended fuselage. Unfortunately this means Navy F-4s don't really have the kind of mileage you'd expect out of an ED module. I won't squawk over the F-4E, but I can pretty much guarantee I'll be flying it in any other livery but USAF.

Historic carrier groups can be found under this page. Find the carrier you want, look at her deployments, and the other ships in the battlegroup for that deployment will be listed. https://www.navysite.de/carriers.htm

It's the attachment point for a beacon strobe, a brightly flashing, waterproof light that would help the pilot be found at sea at night. He pulls it out of his survival vest, clicks it on, and attaches it to his helmet by the velcro. In rough seas or poor visibility, a rescue helicopter might overfly him a dozen times and never see him without it.

I'm in the same hobby. My helmet count currently is up to 19 with 7 HGU-68s, 3 -55s, 5 -33s, and 4 APH-6s. I got into it 15 years ago initially for cosplay and figure modelling but it quickly got out of control. Fortunately in terms of completion I lack only a few difficult to acquire bits of gear, so my wallet is suffering less now. Easier to resist when you've already got one, and I DO NOT want any more helmets. Unfortunately aside from one -33 I know was originally owned by an instructor with VT-9 and a couple that I bought new from Gentex, I don't know the origins of most of what I have.

Lance it seems like you and I know a lot of the same people.

I know him too, and I can ask him right now. I'll update this post with anything I find out. Edit: According to him "1983 was mandate for white tape but not fully adopted till 84.... No painted helmets (for VF-213) after 82/83."

Lance is right. You can see the APH-6D here with butterfly bayonets. Instead of tape for the base color, they used a gloss paint and then a high-gloss clearcoat with metal flake in it. The decals were still made of 3M reflective, though. This was the result.

Mostly done, but real life's caught up with me in the last couple months and finding spare time to completely polish right now is kinda hard. I haven't abandoned them. They're coming.

I'm hoping for SWIP, but will settle for TRAM. I'm of the mindset that the devs should provide the most capable version that they have documentation for and it's up to the players to not use what systems they don't want.

That VF-2 jet in the photo is actually a 70-GR, which aside from running the BuNo, you can tell by the flat, wide beavertail with the dielectric panels as was present on the earliest F-14s. As far as I am aware, we won't ever be getting a 70 or 75.

Until the F-14 was slinging bombs, I wasn't half as interested in it as I was the A-6 Intruder. Growing up, the Intruder was the jet I wanted to fly if I had my choice. The Tomcat was pretty, but I lived by that quote "fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history." I love the F-14 for all it can do now, but the A-6 will always be my first jet crush.

Out of curiosity, what was the losing bet?

*Watches video* A-6 Intruder cockpit shot... *Screams internally* *Visits forum* *Reads posts* *Screams externally*

From my understanding anything that might benefit Iran in upgrading their fleet is non-distributable, regardless of how silly it might seem. Not that it actually keeps them from performing upgrades of any kind, but it's stubborn noncooperation and I never underestimate the willful stupidity of my own government with foreign relations, regardless of the party in control. Prime example, I have a regulator used on LOX systems I cannot legally sell to a collector outside the US because it might find its way onto Iranian Tomcats or Phantoms. Doesn't prevent me from selling it to someone here who might try to smuggle it out, but if I get caught trying to sell it overseas I might face prison time.

There is documentation pertaining to the PTID menus that are still classified to make life hard for Iran's F-14 fleet. The PTID would be required to program and deliver the JDAM. They could just copy the Hornet MFD menus, but Heatblur is classy enough not to just guess at what the systems looked like and how it worked. If they can't do it right, they'd rather not do it at all.

For whatever reason, it's not showing up in the e-store for everyone. I might recommend an updated 1st post with a direct link for those who are having trouble. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/campaigns/f-14a_zone_5_campaign/

VF-103 was using the 100-series modex from ~1997 onwards. The only time they ever wore bones and used the 200s was for one cruise in 1996 right after they got hijacked and were no longer the Sluggers. They looked like this back then. I consider this skin to be an anomaly for Heatblur's F-14B. It looks pretty good, but there is more wrong with it than the others. Typically I only use it for target practice.

I know personally the lady you guys got to voice the AWACS controller. Man, she lands that professionally unexcitable, totally-over-this tone perfectly.

Not an official designation, but some airframes did have an indicator above the BuNo. This from the Fightertown VF-102 sheet:

The first step in earning a pilots license is VFR. Most of the maneuvers you will learn in this phase are either ground reference or horizon reference, which requires you to keep your eyes outside the cockpit most of the time you're flying. As you go, you'll learn that with this type of flying there is very little the instruments can tell you that you can't already judge by looking outside. Knowing whether you are climbing or descending, or even your turn rate, is just a matter of understanding the sight picture of the horizon in front of you. If you are circling a ground reference, it's a matter of putting your eyes on it and keeping it abeam of you in the same general area of your sight picture. Very little other information is required from the instrument panel in these cases. When I'm flying VFR, I only glance at my instruments occasionally to ensure I'm maintaining altitude and heading, checking that my DG hasn't drifted too far, and double checking my navigation instruments to be sure I'm still within margins for my course. This is a couple of seconds out of every few minutes. IFR is a whole different animal, and I'm more or less glued to the IP. In terms of feelings when you're socked in clouds flying at vectors given to you by ATC, it's like being in a simulator in that you cannot trust them. Your eyes and inner ear will deceive you and if you listen to them too long you risk diving inverted out of the clouds. But there is a reason that IFR flying requires a completely different ticket than VFR. In VFR, the instrument panel is valuable, but you aren't married to it yet. It can be a crutch that will rob you of the basics of visual flying. It's not about having raw talent. Skill is earned with patience and practice, listening to the right teachers and following their example. If you aren't good at something, keep practicing until you are. As a side note, I won't protest one day getting Tomcats with these upgrades. More variety is good. But there is nothing two seperate numbers on a HUD can tell me that a quick glance at just one steam gauge can't.

The aerodynamic dielectric panels were prone to flutter cracking since they were right between the engine nozzles, and keeping the panels off caused drag. The newer beaver tail was more structurally and aerodynamically sound. Only the first ~100 or so examples were built with the original beaver tail, and the new one was introduced on the -80GR. By the late 1980s, the original 70 and 75s were relegated to reserve units. They got a lot of other upgrades, but there was no structure to install the RWR receiver back there.

The F-14A version we currently have is from the mid 1990's after they had the glove vanes bolted shut. The earlier versions MIGHT have them, but only as eye candy. They've repeatedly said they aren't going to rewrite the flight model to account for an aerodynamic surface used in such a small area of the flight envelope.

Aside the aforementioned problems, it's also incredibly rare for a naval aviator to fly the plane with his name on it. Maintenance, mission requirements, and scheduling mean that the air crew is put in whatever the available up aircraft is, regardless of who it "belongs" to, so this would kinda be a waste of effort.

Likely it had to do with visibility. The TPS made the planes more difficult to acquire visually and having the missiles match instead of stand out probably helps.