Katj

That's resistance of a sort. It's in stark contrast to the AWG-9 behavior in DCS, because in DCS it just can't wait to decorrelate your track files, and then your missile is trash.

I think a twist stick is fine for the Tomcat. I do think you need a lot of curve, though. Like 30 or thereabouts. It's mainly to have some precision while taxiing and to be able to fly with a centered ball. You don't need any precision at the extremes, you usually just want all you can get. Also, if you are having trouble steering the Tomcat down the runway, just use the roll axis once you have a little bit of speed.

Seems to me like exactly the sort of thing that would be hell to do manually. I guess one could view it as an optimization problem. You want to minimize the error when compared to the published performance graphs. This isn't my field, but it would surprise me greatly if it is a convex problem. It is thus likely that you end up in local minima when you turn the knobs to try to match the graphs. That risk is probably even greater if you start out focusing at matching only a few graphs (e.g. STR). In that case you might very well end up in a situation where the best thing to do is to just start over from the beginning. It's probably very doable to implement a numerical solver, though.

I don't have time to analyze it further right now but the same loadout performed badly in the transonic region per the level acceleration discussion above. So my guess is that it overperformed at either the subsonic or supersonic phase of the flight. The 0+4+4 loadout looked pretty close at the subsonic and supersonic climb phases, but the transonic phase was way slow.

I tested the "MAXIMUM AFTERBURNER CLIMB TO 45,000 FEET AND INDICATED MACH 1.4 AIRCRAFT INITIAL GROSS WEIGHT: 62, 161 POUNDS" And it took me about 4:10 (should be 3:26), or about 120 % of manual time. It consumed 6,700 lbs of fuel, should be 5,3. The 64k loadout (2+2+2) took about 4:40 (should be 3:45) or 124 % of manual time. Fuel consumed was 7400 lbs (5700). The 68k loadout (2+2+2+tanks) was pretty spot on. Took me about 5:30 (about 5:45 per manual), 96 % of manual time and 7500 lbs (8000). ... but I'm no pilot so ymmv and all that.

I tried to reproduce the results and while I didn't get exactly the same numbers it was basically the same. Heatblur F-14 overperforming to Mach 1.0, and then having abysmal performance to Mach 1.2 and also 1.4, then overperforming. I also tested 25k with 4+4 loadout 60,000 lbs and my gut feeling was incorrect. It was the same overperformance to Mach 1, abysmal performance to 1.2, but then overperformance all the way to the top. Going from Mach 1.0 to 1.2 takes almost double the time it should according to the charts. Also looking at the specific exess power charts, acceleration should start increasing at about Mach 1.05, but in DCS you're hitting that brick wall all the way up to Mach 1.2. I haven't had time to compile tables, and Honestly I don't know if I will.

Very nice table, thank you very much! It's not so strange that relationship DCS/manual sort of breaks down near the asymptote (i.e. max IMN). The same would likely be true for real aircraft/manual. But there does seem to be rather large discrepancies across a large speed range. I think you have a small problem in your testing in that you should have started at Mach 0.6725 rather than 0.7 if gross weight was 66,000 lbs. I will try to reproduce your results, and then I'll see if I can get some data for 25000' and 4 x aim-7 + 4 x aim-9, because I think this is worse accuracy-wise. Based purely on my gut feeling, but let's measure it and see. There is data for 5, 15, 25 and 35 thousand feet for 3 different loadouts. I.e. 12 different charts each covering a range of gross weights, so any sort of exhaustive testing is going to be very tedious.

Do you have a reference that discusses this issue with regards to the F-14?

I know, but to me it is obvious that a departure from controlled flight will result in a rapid unplanned disassembly at Mach numbers far below 1.88. Especially at low altitude (high CAS).

Sounds like the sort of thing that would be related to calibrated airspeed rather than Mach. Have you seen any source material for this or is it just speculation?

So stabilizer area was sufficient below Mach 1.88, but above Mach 1.88 it needed to be 3 times larger? Also, the stabs compensating for a 200 kNm torque doesn't sound unreasonable to me. They are the size of F-16 wings, and the F-14 is also equipped with ventral fins of considerable size. I've googled this speed limit and found the following explanations: -Intake ramp was set in a fixed position -Stability -Afterburner spray bar structural limitations These can't all be true. Is there any open official documentation on this issue?

Sure, but that thing was flying at 80 thousand feet and have the engines very far apart, even when compared to the F-14. Also the reaction time of pilot or SAS should not be a factor as the vertical stabilizer itself should keep the jet flying true. It's the reason you can keep your feet on the floor when you're fast. Anyway, I've never heard that stability issues were the reason for the Tomcat's speed limits. I would very much like to read about it.

No, but why wouldn't you have rudder authority to compensate for an engine dying if you're fast?

That's more of a problem when you are slow!

I don't exactly know how it compares to the Hornet but I find the F-14A/B acceleration through the transonic region to to still be surprisingly bad, especially with any sort of a2a loadout. Oddly enough unloading or diving doesn't seem to help much.

Still, if a F-22 has a radar signature of e.g. 1 % of a non stealth fighter that will per the radar equation reduce the detectable range to about 30 %. Of course the real numbers are classified, but it's not unthinkable that a Phoenix could intercept an F-22 in such a simplified scenario. I am however sure the F-22 people use tactics to maximize the advantages of their aircraft. They probably don't fly straight and level and let the other guys shoot first.

Yet lend money to a gaming company is exactly what you have done. Not wanting to lend money to a gaming company is perfectly reasonable. Not wanting to do it, then doing it, and finally being salty about it, is not. If you don't like pre-orders then don't pre-order.

Sounds a bit backwards to be honest, but OK.

Someone also mentioned that you could disable roll(?) SAS and still do all of that stuff.

Are you able to sustain that boost or will it drop with speed?

I don't think they did. All I've seen is that they said they found some leads that may point in that direction. Not that they actually will do it.

Aren't we waiting for HB to decide whether the C should have AMRAAM-like guidance?

Is there any new info on this topic?

I don't get it either. It's nice to reduce the amount of moving parts, but surely not at the expense of a really useful capability. That said, Sweden and Brazil apparently see the benefit as well, as the Gripen E is equipped with a radar of about 100 degrees off boresight capability. I don't know about the Eurofighter AESA radar, but the Gripen E radar antenna is not mounted on a gimbal but instead mounted at a fixed angle and then rotated around the longitudinal axis. I'm sure this setup hurts the detection range on targets that are straight ahead, but probably not by much.

Are you aware that we have the LUU-2 flare? Or am I missing something?