punk

The answer is on their homepage just above Systems Fidelity: http://www.leatherneck-sim.com/f14/ "Ground Attack capability will be included in the -B Tomcat, however the exact sensor package and ordinance available is yet to be decided. It is possible that we will expand the available ordinance or equipment after release to encompass more of the F-14’s later capability." Salute, Punk

As noted here

Thanks guys, I appreciate the info. Salute, Punk

I know this is off topic, but does anyone know or can the dev tell me what font Grumman or LN used for instrument panels in the Tomcats? Salute, Punk

Some additional exerts from an article by Forecast International Inc. Missile Forecast November, 1997: AIM-54A/C/C+ Phoenix - Archived 11/98 Control & Guidance. [...] Missiles use the Hughes AWG-9 Doppler radar fire control system, with an infrared subsystem. The central processing computer is built by Control Data Corporation. The missile incorporates command/inertial guidance through the mid-course and active terminal guidance; the onboard guidance system is designated DSQ-26, the detection device is designated the DSU-28, and the safety fuze the FSU-10/A. Northrop Corporation Electronics Division supplies the inertial reference component. The AIM-54C features an all-new Digital Electronics Unit with all-digital processing and an ability to identify targets by individual characteristics through pre-stored computer simulations. The aerodynamic control surfaces are electro-hydraulically actuated with components supplied by Hydraulic Research and Moog. Borg Warner has developed a pneumatic actuation system for the AIM-54. AIM-54C Improved Phoenix. To meet anticipated threats in the 1980s and beyond, the Navy initiated development of the improved AIM-54C Phoenix. This development was accelerated due to the compromising of -54A technology in Iran. The C version is optimized for use against multiple, close-interval cruise missiles and waves or streams of hostile aircraft. The C model of the AIM-54 is also capable of operating in a severe electronic countermeasures environment, and features upgraded target detecting devices, electronic units, receiver-transmitter units, and autopilots, as compared with the AIM-54A. The Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA, redesigned the target detecting device, which incorporates a pseudo noise feature. This improves the missile's kill probability over a wider threat spectrum, increases its capability in poor weather, and also enhances the missile's reliability in the electronic counter-countermeasures environment. The improved electronics unit is of digital design and incorporates an autopilot function. This increases the Phoenix's capability against very fast targets at very high altitudes. The unit's autopilot includes an inertial reference system. The new receiver-transmitter unit is of solid-state design, incorporating some classified features for enhancement against opening targets, cluster threats, and beam aspect situations. The strap-down inertial reference feature is designated a command-inertial function and makes Phoenix much more accurate immediately after launch. With this enhancement, control of the missile is maintained by the AWG-9 fire control system on the F-14 through the mid-course point of flight. This is the command part of the technique. During this time, the missile's radar is also active. For terminal homing, the missile is fully autonomous, the inertial part of this technique. The AIM-54C provides a four-fold increase in missile capability over the AIM-54A. The AIM-54 command-inertial technology has been proven in tests against BQM-34 and BOMARC target drones. The tests were termed successful, and the command-inertial technology has also been incorporated into Hughes' AIM-120 AMRAAM program. <Salute>

I would say something moderately conventional Western European first, Mediterranean second, US jets post Korea to Vietnam third, Southeast Asia/Russian/Chinese last. (Especially naval versions) BUT NO MORE TRAINERS (or civilian) FOR AT LEAST A DECADE or EVER AGAIN! Please.

I know how you feel. I managed to pick up some great switches, but am scared to start cutting some of the panels up without a cnc machine and no idea how to use one, or more importantly, how to use the software. I have come to a decision that exact replication will not be my goal now unfortunately. I found a light switch panel from an A-6 I was initially going to part out, but now I think it will be easier to use it as is even though the layout is backwards than the Cats for the most part. Hang in there and take breaks when needed so it doesn't burn you out. Something like this is a long term project when not a commercial venture. <Salute>

Just my guess is that until the Iran birds are confirmed to be out of the picture and the remaining frames are privatized, we will not see any being flown. even for the displays, It is hard for them to get parts from naval sources anyway. My guess is once they are free and clear from a countries inventory and sold to individuals, we will not find any airworthy for demos. It is a crying shame and an absolutely disgrace of how the political fools let this bird suffer all its lifetime and into obscurity. I understand 5 frames were sold to private collectors but where then promptly confiscated back.

While not trying to sound like an authority or anything, as I have no way to verify what I was told by the staff member of a small museum in California, the Navy agreement with them for the display aircraft is for it to be able to return the AC to service with little work. They basically are to keep it serviceable, though to what level I don't know since this was mentioned just in passing as part of a larger conversation I had with the ex Tomcat pilot who was part of the team for the display. Though based on the overall conversation none of the AC will become flying exhibits for a long long time.

I am not sure if this has anything to help or even whether it just restates what is already posted , but I received a new book the other day; Grumman F-14 Tomcat by Doug Richardson; (reprint 1987)" and began reading through the Weapons Systems and Sensor chapter, pages 64-69, though I haven't finished the chapter or any of the rest of the book yet, I came across the following; "[...] Phoenix is steered by tail-mounted control surfaces... [offering] lower drag and higher manoeuvrability ... at 17G. [...] After launch, the weapon can use three types of guidance. For long range shots, during the first stages of flight, the missile flies a pre-programmed course under autopilot control. In mid-course flight, the nose-mounted seeker takes over, operating in semi-active mode. If the launch aircraft's AWG-9 radar is set for Track-While-Scan operation, the target is not continually illuminated, so the Phoenix guidance system receives only samples of radar data. "Long missile range demands that demands on missile energy (i.e velocity) be minimized. On maximum-range missions, Phoenix does not fly directly towards the target, but is lofted into a high trajectory to reduce interference between the AWG-9's powerful transmitter and the missile borne receiving system, and to minimize aerodynamic range. [...] "When switched to active-radar mode the missile seeker has a maximum range of 9-11 nm. Once this has been done, the missile is independent of it's parent aircraft and will continue to home without outside assistance. If fired from aircraft at 11nm or less, the round will automatically carry out an immediate target-acquisition, flying all the way to impact as an active-radar "fire-and-forget" weapon. "Some have suggested the existence of a "flyout" mode which would allow the missile to tackle stand-off jammers on which the AWG-9 cannot obtain lock. This presumes the missile could fly most of the way to the target under auto-pilot control, switching to it's built in seeker in the final stages." Notes: Bear in mind, some people question anything published by Osprey, but I am no SME. The 17G manuever number comes from testing/training data, not real world battle condition data I believe. I have just starting reading about the upgrades from A to C model AIM-54s, so have not gotten to anything on the other missile systems. If I find anything that seems to add to your discussion I will try and get something posted. Sorry if my quotation skills are off, it has been awhile since I have had to worry about nit picky English teachers :/ <Salute>

They only helped at very high speeds, and then only marginally IIRC. They eventually removed them from production with B I believe and saved the weight and space with new sensors and such in lieu of the vane plates.

:thumbup: Like I said, tired so it went right over my head :doh:

I once sat in the real bird too over in Santa Rosa a couple years back when they had the open cockpit for her and other display AC, it fit like a glove and the visibility over the nose was incredible, video games never come close to how it really is. Just awesome. Felt like they tailored the cockpit to my size. <Salute>

I know this is a fairly old post and I haven't read past here, but I am mixed on the issue. What I am not mixed about though, is how I feel about people who passive aggressively try to denigrate others in the guise of being PC or not. I hope you understand who that remark is directed at, he/she is quite free with sharing their... thoughts?. Having flown Aces High II for many years in the past, I know and understand that the people taking on a units name is usually in honor of those original men who risked their lives daily to protect their countries at the moments their countries needed them most. It also helps focus them on their aircraft types, training, and mission. In that game accurate skins were the rule of the game developer, so there was no question on in-game skins. I have never played any other MMO flight sims, so I am limited in that regard. I do understand the desire, especially from the Pepsi generation onwards, for their own flashy, unrealistic paint jobs. I do like that idea to an extent though. I actually like the artwork on the OPs first post, though am on the fence over it. One issue as I have been looking around various jet age virtual squadrons, especially the naval ones, is that the top guy or two want to hog the CAG and CO bright birds. It is their right, but in the majority of squadrons I have read or been told stories about, the birds were assigned by mission readiness and not by whose name was on the side. I would like a squadron to make random airframe assignments when handing out their Fragos, this lets everyone fly any and all of the various paint jobs in the realistic arena. Though individually designed and painted birds makes that issue nearly mute, except that it could give everyone a chance at a fresh look now and then, though the owner may harbor ill will over it, so again, probably a mute point. When it comes to this bird, I am a bit of a fanatic so choosing only one squadron or era tears me up inside. I love nearly all of them and like the rest a lot. Makes it so tough to choose. I would love to join a group of fliers who want to have the single airframe mindset who can teach me to fly and fight the AC the way it is supposed to be instead of a Spit IX :/ I do like someone's suggestion of an aggressor squadron too, though I think they should be administratively separate and only operationally together, so sister squadrons if you will. Then, cross training and joint ops would be great fun, but internally, everyone is focused on one airframe, easier for me to keep track, I am easily distracted at times. I was in a couple squads in AH II, one was a made up squad where everyone flew what and how they wished, the other was German iron only and they were much more focused and fought as a unit, but both were fun and filled with great people to spend the evening with for the most part, though sometimes the squelch feature was your best friend :) I guess, in summary, I like your Flying Circus suggestion the most. If you do something like that, I would suggest not going with a real squadron to base this one on, but perhaps a fictional one, perhaps the Arrowslingers from Punks War :) (hint hint) or even one, heaven forbid, from Topgun or something of that sort. <Salute>

I have never understood these types of questions, wouldn't it be better to ask which one is your least favorite? Tomcats are like the ladies, not any single one can be "the" purrtiyust... :)

I am not sure where QuiGon;s comment came from but it is late here. OP - as already stated they were both, a mix of refurbished/upgraded A frames and brand new B Frame production when the A stopped. The major upgrade was engines, not so much avionics though there were some. The refurbishment of planes is a very detailed stripping of most of the bird down to the frame and ripping out and rewiring all electrical lines, in depth frame structural strength testing, and overhaul or replace any deficient parts as well as adding brand new 0 time engines many times. She was stripped and repainted at almost every level. Much of that worn and tired look was the result of corrosion control measures and dirty grease monkeys and pilots crawling over and in her nearly daily. (No offense maintainers, all due respect to you all who are the pilots' most vital wingmen, carrier decks can be pretty dirty AOs, even when washed and degreased)

Thank you Sir, I will check it out. <Salute>

So is there a way of using foia to track down the blue prints for the cockpit layouts?

Not really, the side panels are pretty easy so far. Just connecting the switches to a circuit board that plugs into the computer by USB I got from Desktop Aviator or something like that. There are a lot of things I will have to do for the instrument panel and warning/advisory light panels that will be hard. Honestly, the actual hardest thing to do is find parts at reasonable prices. But we will see how I feel when it is done, it is kind of fun Savage. Thanks Kludo and Sage, I will check it out. <Salute>

According to their website it states, "Ground Attack capability will be included in the -B Tomcat, however the exact sensor package and ordinance available is yet to be decided. It is possible that we will expand the available ordinance or equipment after release to encompass more of the F-14’s later capability." About 2/3 of the page down http://www.leatherneck-sim.com/f14/

Thanks for the input and well wishes fellas. I have been through the NATOPS Kludo, but thanks, maybe I should do so again more slow and diligently. So far I'm safe as I don't have wife-ack problems Grundar. I learned I was allergic to marriage after the second one :/ As far as parts, it is really hard to find many real items since the plane is still considered a national security item to try and keep parts out of Iran. I have found a couple similar switches and such from other aircraft which do not have those issues. I have been buying up old aircraft panels and reusing them without the cover panels so far. I am going to try and have some acrylic cover panels cut to shape, painted and laser engraved down the road. You would be surprised how much Dzus railing costs, but there is a guy on eBay selling 5 ft sections for $30 or so, which is the best price I have found so far. I spent a chit load of money to a foreign company to have a throttle made which would have been great if it would not have been put together with plastic and Elmer's glue. That, gentlemen, is what a waste of money looks like. I will try and see what I can salvage of it and rebuild it more robustly and perhaps try to put some stepper motors on it for auto throttle. We will see how much I can learn about those type of things. If your buddy can come up with anything Sniper, that would be great. If not, so be it. It's been awhile since I have went anywhere on vacation, so maybe Pensacola might be a nice place to revisit since it has been a couple decades since the last time I was in that area. I will take a tape measure with me for sure if they still have the trainer cockpit that used to be there. <Salute> Punk Photo of left console. this is my test bed so far. Mind you, in the future I will be making it look more correct minus superfluous panels.

Greetings, I know there are many of you who are much more clever than I about how to track down the research needed for all the various dimensions of not only the overall interior cockpit area dimensions, but the various instrument and panel dimensions. I have been drawing a blank and making rough estimates based upon the standard width of the various left and right side panels as a constant for beginning to estimate the correct dimensions. I am trying to build a sim pit and want to get as much realism as I can. Any sources or first hand knowledge would help. I messed up my chance to sit in the cockpit and video various measurements, but in the scramble to take it all in, hurry to not stall the long line of those waiting after me and a general amount of excessive levels of cranial O2 I seem to have made the untimely sin of putting the recording settings into standby rather than record mode. Kicked my own posterior when I got back home and discovered this bit of subversion by my subconsciousness. Thanks for your time and/or consideration. <Salute> Punk

The only reference I have ever came across was in a training or testing manual for ordies I think. I haven't the full title since it is an extract from somewhere. "14313 CHAPTER 15 AIRCRAFT WEAPONS SYSTEMS The AIM-54 and AIM-7 missile fire control systems help to select, prepare, and launch AIM-54 and AIM-7 missiles. The AIM-54 is a long-range, semiactive, radar midcourse guided and active radar terminal guided missile. It operates in either the normal or boresight mode." Don't know if that adds to your discussion or merely restates what you guys are arguing. Of course there is more than this regarding the AWG-9 system and such, but only general info. My understanding about its active terminal distance was around 10 miles or so. <Salute> Punk