maxsin72

Hi, Happy New Year Do you think it would be possible to have in the next patch an improvement of acceleration? Thanks

Thank you for the answer, i hope tragedies will not happen and not because of the update

And do you know if the new open beta update will be released during this month? thx

Very interesting. About performance tweaks, do you mean also more acceleration or not? Thanks

Thank you really a lot, really really interesting. Do you have the links to the documents?

Which is the right top speed at sea level for F14B? And which is the top speed in general? Thanks

At sea level F14B stucks at mach 1.15, no way to reach 1.2.

Yes, you are right. Anyway, looking better at the video, probably F14 wasn't using full flaps.

Starting min 13:50, has F14 full flaps?

Ok, i have understood there is many contradicting stuff out there about the Tomcat and i trust mens who have real life experience

Please read the attached document, i think the data were provided by the Navy.

Good to know, thx Not having read your answer before, I did the same tests after the last patch and in fact the situation has not changed. Both A and B with the same gross weight (46600 lbs), A with 4000 lbs fuel, B with 2000 lbs fuel. F14BAFTERPATCH.zip.acmi F14AAFTERPATCH.zip.acmi

But it is risky in case of one engine failure so not possible for safety and in any case not possible at max weight.

I've seen, thx but the theoretical discussion is always valid

The lighter one, but I suppose there is an ulterior motive to your question

At least "it's written on the internet" while what you said is written nowhere. Here is Flight International 30 March 1985 but, if you want, you can go on doing bla bla bla

Sorry but you are wrong, please read this link http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-engine.htm And like this link there are many others that state the same Sorry but i don't agree with you, please look better at my tacview files and you will se both A and B having the same performance (along all the climb) both supersonic and subsonic speed even if they have completely different engines

TF30 perform better than F110 only at high mach number, in any other case, expecially low speed, subsonic speed or any other condition with a low air flux to the engines, i know F110 is much better than TF30. F110 let the F14 take off from the carrier without afterburners while with TF30 there is the need of full afterburners.

Sorry but i don't agree with you. It's true both A and B start at the same speed but at about 24.000 feet they are both at mach 0.8, they are both slowing down and, at this point, it's expected that F110 will give a much better performance slowing down less than TF30 and finishing the climb at higher altitude.

Here are tacview files of my tests. Both F14 A and B are at about mach 0,8 at about 24.000 ft and climb almost the same. F14B.zip.acmiF14A.zip.acmi

No, TF30 performed better at high mach number and F110 improved climb rate very much. At subsonic speed F110 is much better and when you climb almost 90° you'll be subsonic very early.

I have tested climb rate because i've seen F14B having some problems chasing opponents in bfm on the vertical and i've found that climb rate seems tanked. Starting from about 100 ft, 760 KIAS, 20°C, unlimited fuel 4000lbs, full afterburner pulling gently at 88° pitch and misuring time to climb untill the stall: With new FM F14A 41.000 feet in 1min and 11 sec F14B 41.000 feet in 1min and 11 sec (same performance as F14A) Old FM F14B 45.200 feet in 1min and 13 sec So with the new FM F14A and F14B seems to have the same performance and this is strange because GE F110 has much more thrust at high altitude under mach 0,8 than TF30, i think

Thx for the update

Interesting story about max speed https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-f-14-rio-tells-the-story-of-when-he-and-his-pilot-pushed-their-tomcat-beyond-the-aircraft-advertised-top-speed-of-mach-2-34/