Jump to content

Quid

Members
  • Posts

    315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Quid

  1. The F110 has more thrust almost everywhere in the envelope, and just about everywhere that's tactically significant. The TF-30 has more thrust at the extreme top end of speed, the number of above ~1.6-1.7M sticks in my memory.
  2. Read the paragraph on Flap Wing Interlocks and you'll find the 50-degree limit. You should also see a "Wing-Sweep Interlocks" graph that shows the maximum wingsweep positions where the pilot may extend the main flaps (out to 50 degrees). Note also that the CADC can drop maneuver flaps based on AoA at airspeeds higher than those listed in the MF Envelope (figure is "Maneuver Slat/Flap Automatic Schedule for CADC"). By that chart, even if you're at SL at .7M, if you have around 10 units AoA on the jet, the CADC will lower the maneuver flaps.
  3. Going off of memory, it depended on the squadron. Some disabled them, some waited for them to break, then disabled them, some kept them functional. There's images from the mid-1990s of F-14As with their glove vanes rolled out, and their description and functionality is still found in the the 1997 NATOPS for the F-14A. As the 90s wore on, they were disabled more and more often. They were removed from the A's NATOPS by 2003, so some time before then, they had been deactivated across the fleet.
  4. I'm guessing you have the Preliminary Technical Order made by Grumman for the F-14A from 1 June 1972, because a lot of the stuff you're describing isn't found in later versions, and there were some significant changes even before the F-14's initial cruise two years later. For question 1, if you're talking about the inlet bleed door on top of the intake nacelles, it was fixed in place at least by 1982, and likely earlier since no airframe change is listed in later manuals indicating a modification to the bleed door after the aircraft was IOC. The Preliminary T.O. from 1972 describes it as a "forward hinged, two-positioned bleed door with side plates" but by 1982, it is referred to as a "fixed bleed door" and the image showing its operation does not carry a change designation. It may have been fixed in place before 1974. The odds are, HB's F-14A isn't going to be a pre-production model, so I wouldn't expect these to move. For question 2, the two-position "Sweep Prgm Switch" is not to be found by 1975. J.P. Stevenson's "Grumman F-14" by Tab Aero, first published in 1975 includes cockpit layouts which show how rapidly the aircraft's cockpit was changing by bureau number and airframe change. His source list includes the 1 November 1973 preliminary NATOPS manual (the likely source of what are usually foldouts, reformatted to fit his book), and the switch isn't included in any of the cockpit layouts, to include as an airframe change. For question 3, that's a misreading for the later manuals. In the PTO, it states the main flaps may be extended between 0 and 10 degrees with a wingsweep angle of less than 50 degrees. At this time the F-14A didn't have automatically-programmed maneuver flaps; it was totally reliant on the thumbwheel. Later F-14A/B/Ds had automatically positioned maneuver flaps (F-14A Block 90/BuNo 159825 and beyond) which could be overridden by the pilot using the thumb wheel, and the main flaps (the same ones used for maneuver flaps) could be commanded at wing sweep angles of less than 50 degrees, the same as the number listed in the PTO. So, no change there, other than that the pilot's positioning of the maneuver flaps became secondary to the CADC. For question 4, no idea.
  5. Happens to me all the time. The thing is, if you start spamming the PLM button, it keeps locking the next closest chaff to the target (assuming the radar is scanning towards the motion of the target; i.e. scanning right when the target is moving right relative to you, or scanning left while the target is moving left) and if you hit it enough, it'll catch up to what you actually want to lock onto.
  6. Jack1 did a VF-31 2004 "Last Pac" livery from when they were on the Stennis. It's available in the User Files.
  7. This. Thank you, Heatblur!
  8. I got mine late last week and I've actually found I'm loving it for the Tomcat specifically (imagine that). I have a Warthog, and no, the VKB isn't built like a tank, but the biggest complaint I had in my head after testing it out was how light it felt to pull/roll. I went ahead and put some of the included additional springs into my Gunfighter base and now the thing feels a lot more like how the Warthog did from at least a stick force level. Plastic won't ever feel as solid as metal, so from that perspective, yeah, metal would have been nice, but that one change made a lot of difference for me, and I'm actually very happy with it now. With respect to your other questions, IIRC, VKB's sticks aren't compatible with the Warthog base, only Virpil's. Virpil's V.F.X. is also plastic (polyurethane vs. ABS), not metal.
  9. Good to know, might have to pick up an extension myself since I don't need the twist. Mine was estimated to arrive today but that didn't happen - hopefully tomorrow or Saturday.
  10. Working for me as well. Thank you!
  11. I have run into this problem now with the patch released today. The original 2.5.6 was working, then after today's patch (2.5.6.43872) the game breaks after I have entered my information on the login screen and clicked "log in". I put in my user name and password, click "log in" and the game begins to load, switching to the scrolling green bar; but only makes it about 20% or roughly 1 second into loading and it immediately crashes. I have already added both my primary game file location to the Malwarebytes allow list, as well as the Saved Games file location (this was a problem after the initial 2.5.6 update). I have the latest nVidia drivers, which didn't cause a problem in the initial update. I have repaired DCS World OpenBeta, initially without removing mods, then with removing mods, all to no avail - it always crashes at approximately 1 second after attempting to sign in. I have attempted to repair, and then restart my computer, still crashes 1 second after attempting to log in. I did actually send 3 of my crash reports; hopefully that will help. Crash File has the following: # -------------- 20200221-014217 -------------- DCS/2.5.6.43872 (x86_64; Windows NT 10.0.18362) E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\bin\DCS.exe # 80000003 BREAKPOINT at C4090A40 00:00000000 SymInit: Symbol-SearchPath: '.;E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta;E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\bin;C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\system32;SRV*C:\websymbols*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbols;', symOptions: 530, UserName: 'xxxxx' OS-Version: 10.0.18362 () 0x100-0x1 0x0000000000870A40 (DCS): uiAsyncNet::onGameStop + 0x3A8D0 0x0000000000870FF9 (DCS): uiAsyncNet::onGameStop + 0x3AE89 0x00000000017471DB (DCS): AmdPowerXpressRequestHighPerformance + 0xBCD1D7 0x000000000084E2CC (DCS): uiAsyncNet::onGameStop + 0x1815C 0x00000000000DD1C4 (edCore): ed::this_thread::yield + 0x10E4 0x00000000000DCFE1 (edCore): ed::this_thread::yield + 0xF01 0x00000000000DB805 (edCore): ed::thread::_get_current_thread_id + 0x45 0x0000000000020E72 (ucrtbase): beginthreadex + 0x142 0x0000000000017BD4 (KERNEL32): BaseThreadInitThunk + 0x14 0x000000000006CED1 (ntdll): RtlUserThreadStart + 0x21 EDIT: Possibly useful information - the crash appears (in my case) to be associated with logging in. On a hunch, in stead of clicking "log in," I clicked "Cancel." I received the warning that Multiplayer wouldn't available, nor any of my DLC. The thing is, after this, I clicked "OK" and the game DID load! Hope this helps localize the problem.
  12. Okay, so you're assuming the missile at MaxQ, not at any other point in its envelope. If you're saying that the AIM-54 has reached MaxQ and is trying to turn against a fighter doing 9g+, then I'd say, sure, you have a point. But, that isn't the situation most of the time. My example wasn't theoretical, it was an actual test flown in 1973, actually fired at an actual drone and under those circumstances, the missile didn't need 25g, or even 20g to hit a 6g maneuvering target. Context is important here and it sure as hell isn't "simple". In the scenario I posted, the more maneuverable AIM-54C could probably hit a defender in up to an 8g defensive pull. and let's not forget the massive blast radius of the AIM-54 here; it can miss by a pretty large gap and still achieve lethal effects thanks to its huge warhead. What I will acknowledge from your argument is that if the missile were travelling at 4.5-5M, it would have difficulty hitting a 9g defensive fighter, although even then I'd have to ask, what is the energy state of the fighter? What is the Vc? Is the fighter trying to pull 9g defensive at a high Mach number? There's a lot to it.
  13. In the setup I described, 18g was enough for the missile to physically strike the drone in a 6g defensive pull. You're saying an additional 7g on top of that (25) is just barely enough to hit a target in a 5g defensive pull? That makes no sense.
  14. I've noticed this at least two times in MP over the past three weeks or so. I wasn't recording, so I have no track files to present, but I thought it was strange. I was using AIM-54C's in my instances, one time with a human RIO, one time without. In both cases, the missile launched, flew for a while (maybe a little more than 10NM), and then disappeared, then I followed up the shot both times and the second missile had no issue either time.
  15. The C-model had a 25g limit; that number has been published in the open source world since at least 1987. The 18g number is typically listed from what the A-model had to pull to hit a QF-86 in a 6g defensive pull, where the missile rammed itself through the drone. In that test, the F-14 was at .75M and 10,000 feet, with the missile having fired its motor 9.5NM from the target drone. The QF-86 was at 15,300 feet initially at .8M, and executed a dive after the missile began climbing at it, forcing the missile to maneuver to maintain lock. The drone rolled out of the dive and yanked 6g pointed at the missile at 9,100 feet, when the missile impacted, pulling 18g to achieve lead. It may or may not be too maneuverable as currently modeled, but I'd wonder more how well the aircraft is moving relative to the missile, and how much desynch is playing a factor. I notice a lot of my AIM-54 shots get trashed by a maneuvering target if I fire outside of ~25NM; aspect change and tight maneuvering makes the missile waste its energy and it just doesn't have the Schlitz at the end game.
  16. That's pretty much what I posted earlier, but the thing is, there are definitely pictures of them in USN use post-1990. Hell, in a single book there's a shot of a VF-32 Turkey with vanes rolled out over Iraq in ODS, another from 1993 of a VF-84 Tomcat with an F/A-18C on its wing approaching the TR with the vanes out and another one from around 1995-6 from NAWC with a couple different angles taken with the vanes rolled out. Even the 1998 NATOPS retained its section on them. They weren't phased out all at once at the turn of the decade between 1989 and 1990, they were phased out over time. Even at Tomcat-Sunset when it was still going some of the airframers were commenting how in certain squadrons they'd keep them active until they broke, then disconnected the system, other squadrons actively deactivated them, and still others kept them functional. There isn't a really clean cut. By 2003, they're out of the NATOPS, so you can safely say by that time they were all inactive, but 1990 is way too early.
  17. CADC automatic glove vane extension begins at 1.35M with full extension (15 degrees) achieved by 1.45M. BOMB mode deploys the glove vanes if the airspeed is greater than 0.35M, and retracts the vanes when airspeed drops below 0.35M.
  18. The glove vanes were eliminated from the F-14B and F-14D, and removed from As which were rebuilt into Bs and Ds, so you won't see them rolling out of the HB F-14B. They were included in all F-14As and deactivated over time for numerous reasons, not the least of which was maintenance requirements for a system that didn't do much for the aircraft below Mach 2. They weren't deactivated uniformly, pictures exist from even the mid-90s with F-14As with their glove vanes out, but it is much more rare; the systems seems to have been phased out and locked shut across a decade from the late 1980s through the late 1990s.
  19. The point is, you've leveled a complaint that your jet isn't always at 1:1. That document shows that you will not always have a 1:1, that "static thrust" is meaningless, and your complaint is based on a misinformed concept about how aircraft and engines function.
  20. Engine thrust is highly dynamic. Sitting on a stand, it's a lot higher than when you drop it into the aircraft and it's trying to suck air through a small inlet. For that matter, thrust increases as airspeed increases, and decreases as altitude increases. It is also affected by variable inlet designs, the angle of attack (disrupting/decreasing airflow, etc.) If you think you're going to get a 1:1 T/W at 30,000 feet at .9M in a Viper, you're dreaming. There's an open-source document about the F100's performance from the 2008 International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences which should give you an idea of how thrust varies, including a chart showing thrust from sea level to 50,000 feet and .6M-2.0M. The F110 isn't going to be the same, but the same principles apply: http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2008/PAPERS/286.PDF tl;dr, you're not even remotely going to have a 1:1 T/W at all points in your envelope, even in an F-16.
  21. Can confirm. You can do this by switching the Gain Switch to O-Ride as well. I got mine up to 37g on a test server with a few friends, no problems. Re-running it just now, I got to 24.2 (I probably got the 37 due to latency). Problem with the gain switch is that it starts bucking all over the place as you get past 500 knots. The circuit breakers allow for smooth flight at extremely high "g".
  22. There's an open-source report by the United States General Accountability Office (GAO) that gives some of the thrust data for the F/A-18C/D/E/F's engines at a variety of altitudes and airspeeds. Always remember that thrust isn't static, and that published numbers are typically from engines on a stand, not installed in the aircraft, and certainly not at the various altitudes and airspeeds in which they operate! The report number is B-260367, publicly released 18 June 1996 (i.e., unclassified, unlimited distribution) and can be accessed at the GAO's website. With respect to OP's question (relative power of the F/A-18C with the -402 engines vs. the F-16C with the -129), the following data is relevant: Per engine, the F110-GE-129 produces more thrust than the F/A-18C's -402, but the Hornet has two engines. From the GAO report, the installed thrust at static (0 KTAS) at sea level (0 ft) per -402 is 15,179.5lbs, producing a total of 30,359lbs of thrust. As with any turbofan engine, the thrust will increase as airspeed increases (to a point - inlet design and engine tuning affect this), and will decrease as altitude increases. At Mach 0.9 at sea level, the -402 produces 19,310lbs per engine, for a total of 38,620lbs of thrust. You can put that against the weight of the F/A-18C to derive a thrust to weight ratio at 0 airspeed, and at 0.9 Mach. The report actually does 0.8-1.2 for lower altitudes and 0.8-1.6 for higher. For fast reference, let's say you're up at 20,000 feet at the same airspeed (0.9M). Per the report, each -402 engine is producing 12,202lbs (total 24,404lbs). Not even close to a 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio here unless the plane is clean and almost out of gas. At 40,000 feet? 5,134lbs/engine (total 10,268lbs). So, to say "an engine produces x thrust" is a pretty bad mischaracterization - you aren't getting anywhere near the quoted numbers way up in the cons! For the F-16C, the problem is I haven't seen any open-source documents which list its installed thrust, only that it's engine "can produce 29,500lbs" or things to that extent. That doesn't tell me what the installed thrust is, nor its thrust in other areas of the envelope. If I take a wild-ass guess, maybe it's ~27,000lbs at static (0 alt, 0 KIAS). Using that, if I'm describing an F/A-18C with the -402 engine and an F-16C with a -129 at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed (about to take off, so nothing particularly tactical there), and I use some gross weights from everyone's favorite, totally reliable source Wikipedia (yes, I am being sarcastic): F/A-18C: 36,970lbs TOGW vs. 30,359lbs installed thrust for a 0.82:1 thrust-to-weight ratio F-16C: 26,500lbs TOGW vs. 27,000lbs installed thrust for a 1.02:1 thrust-to-weight ratio As I already said, this is a single point of performance with both aircraft on the ground, 0 airspeed, and the Viper's number is a WAG I pulled out of my backside to try to approximate what the inlet might do to the thrust, but the F-16C at least starts with a better T:W. As the aircraft get moving, the situation becomes dynamic quickly, and thrust is heavily dependent on airspeed, altitude, g, etc. of the aircraft relative to each other. It has already been pointed out that T:W is far from the full story in air combat, but WRT your initial question, I hope that gives you some more insight.
  23. Personally, I'd go with the late 80s-early 90s F-14A. The two other options are practically the same. The Navy F-14s from the 1970s and the Iranian F-14s from the 80s are nearly identical because the Iranian birds are slightly modified Block 90 and 95 F-14As produced FY75-76 and delivered between January 1976 and late 1977. The major differences between an Iranian F-14 and a Block 90 Navy Tomcat were that the Iranian cats were not equipped with the AN/ARA-62 ILS, the secure voice radios, or the compatibility with the early (garbage) IRST system. The IFF interrigator could only interrogate Soviet-designed aircraft, and the AIM-54A delivered had a slightly downgraded ECCM suite. One of the things a player might notice in a late 80s-early 90s F-14A that would not be in either of the 70s options (Navy or IIAF/IRIAF) is that the Sidewinder seekerhead position is not shown on the HUD for the early models. Addition of the gun pipper symbol to show where the Sidewinder was looking wasn't implemented until 1985, well after the revolution. Depending on the production block modeled, your early Navy F-14 might not have automatically deployed maneuver flaps/slats, which were first implemented in Block 90 airframes produced during FY75 and delivered starting January 1976. Neither would have the TCS pod, either, so your long-range VID capability won't be there. TCS/TVSU was tested during the mid-70s (especially during ACEVAL/AIMVAL), but didn't get brought to the fleet until the early-to-mid 1980s (going from memory they started to become available in 1981 and installations were completed around 1985-6). As it has already been said, a 1970s F-14 doesn't offer the player many options for gameplay, either. The Tomcat at that time was straight air-to-air. It had a rudimentary air-to-ground capability installed in anticipation for USMC deliveries, but when they dropped out it wasn't fleshed out for another 20 years. Even TARPS wasn't fielded until the 1980s, so you'd be limited to only CAP/Sweep/Intercept/Escort, with no air-to-ground or recon options. Still another thing to remember is that the Iranian F-14s are limited to the Vietnam-era AIM-7E and AIM-9E/J/P family missiles (Iran didn't use the D/G/H of the Navy, and never received the AIM-7F or 9L). Bear that in mind for multi-player purposes. An early Navy Tomcat would have a comparable loadout until around 1976-77, where the 7F and 9L would start to become available. This is getting a little into the weeds, but I bring it up because the aircraft wasn't uniform across time in either loadout, role, or avionics for that matter. While it is true that airframe changes and retrofits brought earlier production blocks up to the same standards as later blocks, if you're targeting a specific production block, bear in mind you won't have the same capabilities or systems that you see later on. If you're already complaining about the HUD, then you lose your S/W seekerhead position, that'll probably just turn you off even more. If you're already complaining about relative missile performance, start fighting with Vietnam-era Sparrows and rear-aspect Sidewinders and see how far you get. If you're relying heavily on TCS for VID due to datalink limitations, you won't have that either. If HB does indeed release an IRIAF F-14A, which I thought they had planned on, you'll see this anyway atop the TF-30s instability. I'd personally be okay with any of these options because I'm okay with the earlier technology, but as I opened with, I'd prefer a 1990s F-14A just to have the assortment of roles, comparable avionics (the ALR-67 display will be missed), and more modern air-to-air missiles available if I'm flying against a more modern threat. But, I will continue to break accuracy by putting high-viz livery on the late F-14A...I already do on the B.
  24. The video provides an explanation as to why the aircraft's wings come off, which I correlated to your question about why it is that the plane can hit such a high "g" a few times. That is the structural "point" system as described by the GR video. Your questions were more specific, however, so, sorry, my response wasn't adequate to those questions asked (e.g., high "g" not blacking the pilot out, why it seems to break more often at lower speeds and lower-high "g", etc.).
  25. The Grim Reapers did a video on the structural damage model which might help explain it: So, you can do brief forays at very high "g" but the plane will eventually break. Mine almost always breaks after I get above 13, though I rarely do that and haven't ripped the wings off in a long time.
×
×
  • Create New...