Quid

Well, Phoenix isn't an AMRAAM to be sure, but it is surprisingly maneuverable for its size and was the first missile we had that could reliably achieve a kill against a defensively maneuvering target. Against a QF-86 in 1973, one did a combined-plane 18g pull to achieve an intercept against the drone, which had just rolled vertical into a 6g defensive pull, ramming itself through and achieving a kinetic kill (it had a ballast in place of a warhead). I've seen at least two open-source publications that give a 25g envelope for the AIM-54C. Of course, the missile can't do this willy-nilly anywhere in its envelope; it doesn't have enough smack in a super-long-range intercept to achieve that kind of turn, and if its inside a certain range, won't have built up enough either, but the thing actually can pull hard enough to hit a maneuvering fighter-sized target and you absolutely can expect that it will knock you out of the sky if you're in the heart of the envelope.

On a test stand, the engine is drawing air without an inlet obstructing it. So, the quoted 20,800lbs for the TF-30 is higher than when installed in the aircraft at static, same with the F-110-GE-400's 27,600lbs. The Wikipedia page actually just copies the information from the F-14D's NATOPS regarding the F-110-GE-400: 23,400lbs installed at a stand-still, 30,200lbs installed .9M. Now, the nice thing is that Google Books has a portion of the F-14A's NATOPS manual that was released to the open source world which you can buy on Amazon, including the section on thrust. Installed, the TF-30P-414 produces 17,077lbs at a stand-still (10,875lbs at mil power). The NATOPS doesn't discuss thrust at .9M at sea level, but since about 1975, the TF-30's thrust in that region has been published in the open-source world (TAB Aero Series 25, Grumman F-14 cites it). The TF-30's installed thrust at .9M is approximately 28,000lbs at sea level (not exact). So, at 0.0M and 0.9M at sea level, the TF-30 does: 17,077 - 28,000lbs The F-110 does: 23,400 - 30,200lbs The thing is, these are single-points of performance. Engine thrust is dynamic and is affected by airspeed, altitude, g, computer controls, atmospheric conditions, etc, so having two points separated by .9M at a common altitude isn't going to give you the full picture of the engines' relative performance.

I made a video which shows what I'm talking about. For whatever reason I'm having problems with the render resolution (doesn't seem to want to render to full screen regardless of what settings I use), so you'll have to maximize the screen to see the control inputs. https://youtu.be/EmzmsNLqNV4

Hello, I tested with roll SAS on and roll SAS off, both with the same result. Will post a video in a moment.

Hello, all! I think I may have found a bug. I've just updated to the latest version of DCS World OpenBeta and have performed a number of free-flights in the Tomcat. Having noted the intent to reduce the rudder effectiveness at high AoA, I went ahead and began testing the roll rate for the rudders. As a control, I went ahead and tested the rudders with stick neutral, and input rudder only roll. To my surprise, the aircraft started rolling in the correct direction for barely a second, followed by a sudden reversal and roll in the incorrect direction (left rudder induced right roll and vice-versa). I tested with more rudder input from the get-go and the aircraft immediately began rolling hard in the wrong direction. I began pulling aft-stick and inputting rudder. With just barely any aft stick, the aircraft rolls in the correct direction. At high stick deflections, the aircraft rolls in the correct direction as well. As I understand it, the F-14 doesn't suffer from rudder-induced roll-reversal, but rather stick-induced above a certain AoA (15 units? going off memory here). It is also strange that at neutral stick it happens, but the instant I use even the most minor back stick, it shapes up. A few people I fly with have noticed the same strange behavior. I have tried restarting the game, and have checked my controls/axis tuning/etc. and nothing is out of place, and it still happens. Is the rudder-induced roll-reversal by design, or is it a bug? Wanted to report if the latter. Still enjoying the hell out of this module, keep up the good work! V/R, Quid

The reason so many websites list that number is because 74,349lbs has been a publicly released figure for the F-14's maximum weight since the 1970s. I'm not certain where that figure came from precisely, if it was based on experimental loadouts, or Grumman's test-dropping the airframe to failure, but I know its been quoted for decades, printed and re-printed in aircraft reference books and even Tomcat-specific books, but it doesn't match the manual numbers.