maxsin72

Yes you are right, this is what we had not with the old FM. I've heard that with special F14 cfg they reached mach 2.5 and i've also read of someone who made a photo to the intake of one operational F14A and there was written mach 2.42. Mach 2.34 is for operational F14A. I've also tested (free flight Caucasus) max sl speed: F14B a bit more than mach 1.1 (760 KIAS) F14A mach 1.25 (850 KIAS). Is it normal the F14B is so much slower than F14A at sea level? P. S. i know tf30 has higher thrust at high mach number.

I must say, after many bfm matches, that new FM is much better than the old one. The plane is no more tanked and now is able to sustain turn rate at 300/350 knots IAS without losing speed. So i'm happy about that. I've also seen f14b top speed went from mach 2.2 to mach 2.1 and f14a top speed is mach 2.2 in quick mission free flight Nevada clean cfg (weapons and fuel tanks jettisoned) , so a bit far from mach 2.34. But globally the new FM is good.

Because i do really much bfm on multiplayers servers, i am always doing STR turn and i would like to have every single decimal of G force, to turn as better as the f14 is able to do, expecially at sea level where f14 excels. I've read the same kind of answers to Hummingbird also when he wrote the f14 with new FM was tanked in november 2020 but all we know what is happened in the meantime.

Thx for the answer, a provisional fix perhaps could be to increase a bit F110/TF30 performance so the cat would be able to pull a little more.

I hope it would be possible to fix new FM as soon as possible, in any case not in almost one year as per the last update. I'm becoming old in the meantime

Fat Creason last month wrote about new FM in the october patch so i hope it will arrive

You are right, i know, but with the mouse it is even worse.

Very interesting and detailed, thank you one more time . To benefit of manual wings swept i think a dedicated axis is absolutely necessary but we must also keep in mind that flight model is goings to change very soon , maybe in the next few day, the 14 october and, probably, the cat will have finally his own sustained turn rate, expecially between 320-380 knots. I'm very curious to test new FM

Thanks really a lot, both for the interesting info (i've seen your tacview file) and for your time you gift me/us to share all the details I'm trying to understand if there is a way tou use wings swept back to bleed speed and turn very tight when chasing another plane who can use airbrakes over mach 0.7 (i've seen airbraks want not work for F14 over mach 0.7) and is able to decelarate very quickly when the pilot wants to be overtaked (f18 or M2000 for example). I also wish you a beautiful WE.

Thx it would be interesting to see the tackview file

Very interesting, i'll try to do it for fun

Ok guys, i understood, thank you for yours answers

You are right, i have a lot of passion and i love F14. But i didn't ask to put glove vanes in the flight model, never and you know that if i think that's right to ask something i'll do it. My first question was how many deg/sec (instant turn rate) the experts on the forum think Snort was pulling in the video i have posted, the same video with the F14 with glove vanes. I was also hoping in a @Victory205 answer. 1.mp4

No, i don't agree with you, you are only making another unuseful controversy because after i asked my question nobody gave me all the info i've found in Bio's interview, othewise show me who gave all those details.

Those words are not mine, who is speaking is Bio Baranek in the interview i have linked and he is speaking to common people so i can't understand your post. My point was to understand the effect of glove vanes but, to have an exhaustive answer without controversy , after i asked the question in the forum, it was necessary to use google.

I acknowledge that no one within this space has been able to give me an exhaustive answer about glove vanes. Instead, I feel a great desire to make an unuseful controversy. Fortunately, google exists, next time will be my first choice to ask questions. 2. Were the “glove vanes” effective? First, the true purpose of the glove vanes might surprise some people: they were intended to REDUCE STABILITY at high speed, to paraphrase the NATOPS manual. Yes, reduce it, because at high speed with the wings swept the F-14 was too stable in pitch, which meant it couldn’t turn. The speeds I’m talking about are above Mach 1.35, which is where the computer-programmed deployment of glove vanes started. The glove vanes allowed the F-14 to meet performance requirements for supersonic maneuverability. The pilot could also deploy glove vanes at lower speeds. Were they effective? I think so, in their intended purpose. But did they have a _significant_ impact on F-14 performance? That’s debatable, because we rarely flew above Mach 1.35, and below that speed they just didn’t have much effect on aircraft performance. But the glove vanes also came out in “Bomb” mode on the wingsweep, so they helped stabilize the aircraft during high angle bomb runs. Also, they were deactivated and then deleted, so the Navy and Grumman considered them “expendable.” Dave “Bio” Baranek https://theaviationgeekclub.com/qa-with-a-former-f-14-tomcat-rio-dave-bio-baranek-answers-your-questions/

And you seemingly ignored what i wrote beforehand. Glad to see that finally you want get back on topic.

... And It's not correct to affirm The contribution to the lift would be roughly proportional to the increase in lifting surface, which doesn't look like all that much to be honest. because the contribution to the lift increase also with (air) speed and, with wings at 68 deg and automatic wings swept, air speed usually is high.

I have never pretended to give "numbers', i have only asked a question about, approximately, how many deg the F14 was turning in the video. And i also have asked what SME could think about that, so please keep calm Anyway the FM of HB F14 is also based on SME knowledge and not only on NATOPS charts and i think HB made the right choice

I have quoted the part of your sentence that is pertinent with what i wrote. When you write "at speeds no one would turn anyway", you miss my point. If you didn't understand, my point is that also small surfaces at high speeds generate strong lift, period, end of my sentence, this is a general phisic law

I've also read F14D has max speed limited to mach 1.88 due to ramp-system=inlet fixed, so to require less expensive maintenance. I think the same is for glove vains.

I confirm i think your assumption is wrong: you talk about small surfaces in your first post and my answer was that also small surfaces generate strong lift at high speed, in your answer you didn't mention speed as a crucial factor. So please tell me if this is wrong or right because with your answer you insinuate something i did't wrote. So you confirm that glove vains allow you to turn better at speeds. I thank you because i wrote the same thing.

I think G2 is much more comfortable than G1 and it is also lighter (i had both).

I think your assumption is wrong: also small surfaces at high speed generate strong lift and gloves vanes function was just that.

Yes, i have thought glove vanes could help to turn better with wings swept back.