Victory205

You could post a video of cute puppies playing in a laundry hamper and these nimrods would find a way to argue about it.

No, no, he’s right! I remember taking on P3’s, C130’s and KC135’s (the R was a beast in a flat scissors) in my TOPGUN class. We went up against actual exploited Badgers and even a couple of stolen Tu95’s over the desert near Tonopah. They were leftover from the legendary Have Eclair exploitation program. My TOPGUN graduation hop was against a simulated attack by a regimental sized formation of B1 bombers, flown by elite NFWS instructors. No wonder getting into the school as an instructor was such a competitive endeavor. The whole time, I was wondering why in the hell Grumman put a puny 20mm gun on the F14 (I mean, “The Cat”, as you fine folks are wont to say). This thread is a candidate for the stupidest to date, and that’s saying something.

How about a pair of B61’s? I’d own all of the Persian Gulf scenarios…

The maneuver flaps are operating correctly. They extend fully at 10.5, retract at 7.7 units if the wings are at less than 50 degrees sweep. Think about it, if the system extended incrementally between the two AOA values, then the flaps would be moving constantly as pilot inputs rapidly changed the AOA while between those parameters. Changing flap movement directions, stresses the actuators and causes constant pitch changes and tracking bobbles. Remember, it’s not a FBW aircraft, and the separation between the extend/retract AOA values is meant to avoid rapid or constant change in direction of the flaps for the reasons stated. The maneuver flaps would lockout in a partially extended position if an asymmetry or disagreement was detected while they were actuating, which was addressed by holding the man flap thumbwheel full forward and pressing the Master Reset switch. This reset the logic and hopefully resulted in recovering the use of all flaps.

The autopilot trims at 1/10th of the normal, manual trim rate. It can’t keep up with manually sweeping the wings aft like that due to the change in Cp, nor is it able to keep up with extreme acceleration or deceleration. It’s not an airliner autopilot, it was generally used by turning it on after the pilot stabilized the aircraft at the desired altitude and airspeed.

You should use conventional rollout technique applying rudder for directional control during decel on landing rollout. Lateral stick into the wind if there is a crosswind present to keep the upwind wing from rising, while programming aft stick for aero braking as the aircraft decelerates, all while keeping the nose wheel on the ground. lateral stick inputs will cause the nose to track slowly in the direction of lateral stick input, but isn’t a primary technique of control, it’s just something that exhibits the power of the stabilators and is there as a secondary means of helping directional control. The rudders are a more powerful and straightforward means of lateral control. Typically select NWS when at taxi speed. Nosewheel steering may be used during rollout but it should be engaged with the rudder pedals centered to avoid a swerve upon engagement. It’s cool that HB modeled the stab effects, but they aren’t a primary control on rollout.

You don’t have the landing gear bypass switch selected by chance?

Afraid not. Didn’t happen in the days of hydro mechanical fuel controls, and likely doesn’t happen now due to the requirement for expensive, labor intensive engine runs for verification. Engine thrust levels do vary between motors, as a result of the differences in fuel control setups, acceptable ranges, and overall wear. We used different fuel types between shore and ship based too.

Last thing I want to waste time on is parsing trite statements from my peers, some of whom I’ve known for three and a half decades as if they have suddenly appeared in a burning bush, or study a YouTube video frame by frame like it’s the freaking Zapruder Film. It’s Friday, go out and enjoy life.

The NATOPS limit for autopilot engagement is 400KIAS/.9 Mach, whichever is lower. Hopefully, there aren’t any SME’s stupid enough to have engaged the autopilot at 450KIAS to see what might happen.

This obsesión with glove vanes is a bit strange. They were there for the reasons that Iron Mike described above. However they were both simple and crude in execution. They added surface area forward, but at the same time, disrupted airflow over the inboard wing gloves. They made pitch slightly more sensitive, and caused mild buffet on extension and an increase in buffet during subsonic maneuvering, which is why we left the wing system in auto. We didn’t pay much attention or give much thought to the things, other than occasionally extending them in the break. A lot of trivial aspects of the aircraft are far more important to enthusiasts that they were to crews and maintainers. I blame the British.

If the Navy hadn’t chosen to disable the Glove Vanes, then the Tomcat would still be flying today, the Covid pandemic would have never happened, there would be World Peace, and Pierre Sprey wouldn’t have ended up as a record producer. So sad. BTW, the method for getting the glove vanes to extend is to either use Bomb Mode, or sweep the wings aft of 55 and then select Bomb. Pilots did it for aesthetics. It also created more vapes if conditions were favorable. And World Peace.

Bad habits from FBW sim-jets. It’s not a good practice to snatch on G in any aircraft, both tactically and physiologically.

I mentioned the tunnel contribution to lift and the stalled wing phenomenon several years ago, and amazingly, it’s described in NATOPS. What’s happening in DCS is players are snatching on massive instantaneous G’s far beyond what is described in a wind up turn. Many of the maintainers here also know about the problems we had with rolling G causing torquing on the fuselage from the famous “569 bulkhead” and fuselage skin delamination. The asymmetric G load that Crunch and Bio couldn’t recall was 5.2 G’s at combat weight. The discrepancy between the cockpit and CG located G meter was a known issue (it’s a physical issue that is present for most aircraft), but I didn’t know that it was that large, at least a full G. Maybe that’s why we performed better than most expected. The podcast was very well done, I was surprised that BIO and Crunch hadn’t heard a lot of that before. On the east coast, we had visits and lectures from Navair and Pax River all the time concerning developments and issues, and why most of it wasn’t going to make it into fleet jets. Curt’s statement about the program being underfunded throughout it’s entire life was sadly true. The Navy spends on ships that spends most of their service life in port and or overhaul, and surface and subsurface assets vigorously compete for funding. Part of the issue was the unneeded push for a 600 ship Navy. NB- for all of you who are obsessed by speed comparisons, Curt Schroeder mentioned 2.41 Mach as the maximum that Grumman demonstrated in level flight, after careful intake ramp tuning. Max Q he discussed was 857 KIAS, done inadvertently. I’m sure that one wasn’t achieved level.

I heard that all flight model (including glove vane installation) and weapons system development has stopped while you worked on the sound of the gun?

Yeah, but the rifling in the F15C gun is the wrong twist rate and runs in the wrong direction. I’m appalled. Heatblur won’t model something incorrectly, so they’re waiting for the correct twist and number of lands and grooves in the barrels before committing to a visual representation.

We didn’t fly standard rate turns, only half standard rate, which is common in jets since once above 205 KTAS a SRT requires over 30º AOB. The turn needle is cross referenced, but primary the correct bank angle is held using the VDI. Experience is such that the pilot becomes familiar with the required AOB in typical holding. Timing to make the assigned push in the marshal stack was about the only place timing in turns was a player, Otherwise, the max angle of bank under instrument flight procedures was limited to 30º and due to the fact that typical KTAS would exceed that for a standard rate, the pilot accepts whatever the turn rate resulted. Again, typical in jets. In IMC/IFR, the max AOB is 30º, or 25º if a flight director is available. Only thing I can offer is to ensure that you are referencing KTAS and not KIAS. Sounds like you are up to speed on that, however.

When it comes to using Youtube as a source, this says it all-

Language evolves, but…good grief, “Fighter Jet”? Your Dorkmeter ™ should be pegged.

It’s good that he is being coaxed into helping with the RIO side of the equation. Since you are being a smartass, then let’s point out that no one called the F14 “The Cat” either. “The Cat” was a devices that launched you off of the ship for a few hours so you could have a respite from dealing with ship’s company for awhile. I’ve heard a few aviators call the F14 “The Tom”, but I never heard that while I was flying it, and the guys are heard use it are pretty drifty in the first place. It was the “F14, the Turkey or the Tomcat”. Some airplanes were never called by their official name. I don’t know if I ever heard anyone call the B52 the Stratofortress, or the A10 the Thunderbolt. The A3 was “The Whale”, I couldn’t remember it’s official name of “Skywarrior” and had to look it up. Missiles didn’t go “pit bull”, never heard the term used, they went “active” either automatically or by command. “Tarmac” is what a “Taxiway”, “Ramp” or “Runway” was made of. Those are the three surface names of an airport. You don’t get “stuck on the Tarmac”, you park on a taxiway or ramp, waiting for a gate. “Boom and Zoom” is a flight sim term. “Fighter Jet” is horrifying media dork term. It’s morphed into a commonly used description by pilots, which tells me that the world is doomed. It sounds like “Racer Car”, or “Sailer Boat” to me. We’re all a bunch of dorks. Might as well admit it now, and get used to never having a date with a normal female (or male if you are an F15 pilot, nothing wrong with that) again.

The D taking a field arrestment appears to have sustained a Combined Hyd failure. In the Final Countdown image the pilot has manually moved the flap handle to a partial position. The system functions as described, extending full AUX flaps and wing flaps commensurate with the handle position. My guess is that they either had inop maneuvering flaps, or wanted a bit more flap extension that the maneuvering flaps offered, but not full flaps for aesthetic movie star reasons. The aircraft had just experienced a level six Time Warp, so who knows how that affected the onboard systems? I mean, PD radar hadn’t been invented in 1941, so I doubt if the electrons were behaving correctly.

I didn’t “back you” personally, I referenced the way the system works, I don’t care who or how it came to my attention. It’s about finding the truth. Heatblur is dedicated to getting the module correct, period. They are doing their best in the midst of what is often nuanced, conflicting information. They don’t take what I say or what any SME says at face value- they seek to cross reference my inputs, as they should. That’s exactly what occurred here. To quote a beloved instructor- “beware, there is bullshit everywhere”, and often you gents succumb to that phenomenon by demanding what you saw in a sea story somewhere that contains unprovable, extreme fringe rhetoric for one reason or another. I constantly look for and invite other sources who bring perspective on such matters. Generally speaking, everyone here would do well to stop taking things personally, grow thicker skin, take yourself less seriously, and stop making every trivial thing into a personal offense. Last damned thing we need in the world right now is more people who believe everything is about them. If you think you have an anomaly, bring it up where we can all see it and think it through. Stand on your hind legs like a man, make your case, hold forth in a professional manner, firm and always polite. Those last four words were a life long gift from one of my bosses, and have served me well for decades.

I'm referencing a couple of his other videos. Maybe there is a reason that he was once threatened by court martial, eh? Nothing wrong with trying to make money on Youtube. He's giving the audience what they want, telling old sea stories and talking about basic concepts. It's new and exciting for you.

This is an updated document describing flap and spoiler operation, with tips on real world operation. Read the document before asking questions. F14 DCS Spoilers:Flaps Tips.pdf

Golo and NATOPS are correct. The main flaps can be lowered incrementally. For an example, look in the PCL under Assymetric Wingsweep. After pulling the AUX flap Circuit breaker to keep the AUX flaps from impacting the fuselage, incremental main flap extension was used as part of an emergency procedure if the wings were stuck in an asymmetric position.