Katj

I have not done extensive testing but the F-14A seems to be able to punch through the sound barrier with a meaningful loadout now. I just did one Rutkowski climb with the A and B and a 4 sparrows + 4 sidewinders loadout and there wasn't a huge difference between them. The A seemed faster at the top end. I have to test more but it sure seemed promising.

I mentioned those missiles in the post you quoted. I'm guessing you should read what you respond to.

I mean, for all we know they may have had to fire them in boresight mode. That they used them successfully doesn't exclude compatability issues.

The first sidewinder kill is listed on September 10 1980, which is at the very beginning of the conflict, or even slightly before. "No compatible missiles" may still have been true for some units or something like that. Or maybe they just didn't have full functionality. Enough to kill, though, it would seem.

I've read that they didn't take delivery of sparrows or sidewinder before the revolution and thus the Phoenix was all they had. The story goes the missiles from their F-4s weren't compatible. That doesn't agree with this list of Iranian air victories, however. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war Lots of sidewinder and sparrow kills. Anyway I would rather have been in an Iranian Tomcat than any Iraqi bird during that particular conflict.

I'll have to check this out. But may I ask what happens if you multicrew and the pilot leaves the aircraft? Is the rio despawned as well? This is currently something of a problem when you fly rio. The pilot might get technical problems or family stuff. It'd be nice if you could continue with Jester, should this happen.

Yes and no. I think the situation is as follows: 1. There are some publicly available documents that hint at the AIM-54C going active when it's getting near the predicted intercept point. Essentially like an AMRAAM. 2. Said documents may not be specific enough for Heatblur to implement this in DCS.

Thanks! That does indeed look interesting, but HB used different, less certain, wording. So I guess we'll see.

Are you sure stub pylons aren't included in empty weight? I've never seen an F-14 without them.

Where can I read about C going active on it's own?

Wouldn't that require you to jettison the phoenixes if you wanted to drop the bombs, for stability?

Maybe the navy just didn't use them enough for them to be worth the expense. I.e. the navy didn't maneuver at supersonic speeds like they originally thought they might. Especially after the fall of the Soviet Union.

I think the largest effect is that they move the center of lift forwards, which lowers trim drag and of course increases responsiveness in pitch. Of course they say that the effect was so small they didn't need them and inactivated them in the 90s. Nevertheless the super tomcat 21 proposal featured enlarged gloves that kind of resembles the original gloves with the vanes extended. Don't ask me how that affected stability with wings full forward.

They also extended when wing sweep was (manually) put to bomb mode.

Kudos for looking into this again to get to the bortom of it. I bet there were some confusing wording in the documents with regards to own speed. The AWG-9 knows the closure by knowing what it isn't...

I know it's broken in dcs but I wanted to know how the fallback SARH mode is supposed to work.

IRL, if the switch was on PD active and you fired on a PD-STT track, say 80 NM away, would the missile loft when it started receiving the fallback wcs guidance?

Were getting off topic but anyway: You don't exactly level off at 22 kft, you unload, which means you will follow something of a ballistic trajectory. You'll most likely end up at mach 1.2 at some other altitude than 22 kft. At this point the next step really depends on what you want to do. But it's often a good idea to start a climb but let the speed increase towards mach 1.3-1.6.

It goes something like: 1. Slam it in full blower, 2. Accelerate to mach .9 3. Climb at mach .9. (Adjust attitude as necessary to stay at mach .9) 4. When you pass 22 kft, unload (you should read 0 g on your accelerometer) 5. When you pass mach 1.2, pick it up again Transsonic drag is still a bit wonky in our dcs f-14 so you will have to experiment a bit to find something that works for you. But this is also a guide on how to lose your radar contacts due to having closure rates in excess of 1800 knots!

I'm not familiar with the internal workings of the awg-9, but in my mind it could conceivably make sense from a technical viewpoint. I am somewhat skeptical though. There should be a fairly simple technical explanation as to why the interval would be centered around 0. Someone on these forums should know. Operationally it is obviously less than ideal.

I find it a bit weird that the range is centered around 0. I.e. +/- 1800 knots. E.g. -600 to +3000 would make a whole lot of more sense unless this is a side effect of the implementation. I don't understand why they'd even bother to implement the aspect switch for the PD modes. 600 knots of opening is plenty, anyone escaping with more speed than that isn't going to be a factor in the immediate future. Conversely, a target with 2000 knots closure is really something of a problem you need to deal with.

Like I said, I understand it's not always that simple. I wasn't suggesting that this particular issue with the speedbrake is that simple, it was just an example of how I wished the changelog was written where applicable.

Very nice! Looking forward to it! Just a small request: Where applicable, please write in what direction something changed in the changelog. E.g. instead of writing "updated speedbrake drag" you can write "increased speedbrake drag". I realize it's not always that simple, but then again sometimes it is.

I'd say no one else is a pretty good estimate, I've never heard of the issue before. Probably something with your exact setup that triggers it.

We already knew that the current drag/thrust is incorrect, especially with stores. We also know that the Devs are aware and working on it. What do you want us to say? See if you can find some inconsistencies after they update the FM, it's useless to do it now.