Quid

F-14A roundabouts 37-38K, F-14B roundabouts 35K.

This.

Indeed, several minutes at full blower!

At what altitude? A 2/2/2 on the deck should get to about 1.1M, a 2/2/2+tanks just barely over 1.0M. If you're at just below 40K feet (about 38,000) you should be able to get the plane to about 2.1M with a 2/2/2 sans tanks (fuel permitting), and just over 1.8M with them. I'd expect a 4/2/2 without tanks to be between those. Haven't checked myself yet, but I hadn't been aware of the F-14A being unable to break 1.0M in a while; could be a return of a bug, but without more info it's hard to say.

I'm also still experiencing the random hanging after the patch.

Archived from Tomcat-Sunset. Both Hoser and Turk explained Boomer was the lead author of the final report from the exercise (Navy BLUFOR side) as well (also archived), to include corrections made to the report to the Joint Service Operational Requirements board after there had been some possible meddling. That's about all I can find in my archive on Boomer WRT ACEVAL/AIMVAL.

Funny story from "Turk" Pentecost while at ACEVAL/AIMVAL involving Boomer: "At the end of the pretest work-ups, we deployed, along with the Navy/Marine Gomers [REDFOR] and some Top Gunners, to Yuma for a couple of weeks on the ACMR [Air Combat Maneuver Range]. It was a terrific deployment with all the usual fighter pilot stuff, including a debrief, and nacho eating contest at Chretin's. Inevitably, of course, somebody said "my skipper can out drink your skipper" and the fight was on. After 3-4 shooters, Ruff and Falcon [J.W. Taylor] were pretty evenly matched until Boomer slipped twenty bucks to our waitress. The slugfest continued with Ruff getting Jose Cuervo and Falcon slamming back tap water. After another 3-5 rounds, Falcon looked about like he did when we walked in. Ruff was about one shooter away from spending the night at the Chretin's [sic] with his face in his plate. For 32 years, I've wondered if anyone ever told Ruff."

Copy all. I only included my Phoenix tactics as a point of comparison. Again, this might require some tweaking from either ED or HB in terms of AI WEZs, I just don't know who. I'll let those who know better provide amplification from here.

Ah, I see. Yes, the AI's defense is incredibly predictable. When I'm going against AMRAAM or R-77 shooters, I have a prescriptive set of tactics to run myself; 30K+ feet, 1.01-1.2M, fire at 32.5NM (missile releases at between 31 and 32NM), then take an angle-off to 45-50 degrees right/left, hold one potato, two potato, reverse to the opposite, by the time the enemy AI would shoot, they are now full defensive vs. the AIM-54. If the AIM-54 doesn't take chaff, they eat the Phoenix. If it does take the chaff, I've already recommitted, fire a follow-up, if they shoot at me I go full cold and they eat the next Phoenix, if they don't, I keep pursuit and they either eat the Phoenix anyway or I follow on with a Sidewinder as they try to recommit. So, I get your comment and complaint. I just don't know who controls the missile logic for the AI [EDIT] to make it more challenging.

Not sure what OP's getting at? I splash AI AMRAAM, R-77 and SD-10 shooters on Ace with AIM-54s all the time. It's not much of a feat. EDIT: Unless he's bringing this up as a critique of the AI's ability to employ a missile, which I would assume is ED's side, not HB's, but there's limits to what you can make an AI do (hence why it's so easy to kill either way).

According to its TO from 1969 (well within the Vietnam War era), the F-4E could absolutely get faster than Mach 2, to include with 4x AIM-7s, 4x AIM-7 and 4x AIM-4D, 4x AIM-7 and a centerline tank, or a single B28 nuclear bomb on board at 35,000 ft - 45,000 ft. Looking at the slatted version, it's slower, but it can still exceed Mach 2 with 4x AIM-7.

Hello, @scommander2, OP's question was WRT real-world split throttle usage. I am aware of and have used split throttles in the early days of the F-14's release in DCS to test spin recovery, but it wasn't a real-world procedure, either in bold-face or unorthodox concepts like Hoser's manual wing sweep combined with counter-rudder which he used in the real world twice - he matched the throttles, he did not split them. Plenty of things are done in DCS that were not done in the real-world, or were done very rarely. Split throttles is something very few Tomcat drivers talk about, some (like Okie) completely eschewed the thought because you were cutting a bunch of useful thrust, while others like "Jambo" stated it was feasible with F110s, but with the TF-30s you were asking to cough an engine. Suffice to say, I am more aware of Tomcat pilots who considered split thrust a disadvantage than those who considered it an advantage [EDIT:] outside of highly specific circumstances like in my original post.

I've heard of a few Tomcat pilots using it under incredibly specific circumstances, one attested to in the book Bye Bye, Baby: John "Stash" Fristachi, on flying against "Snort": "I recall watching from the edge of the 500-foot bubble as both our jets became ballistic at 12,000 feet in W-72. Somehow Dale managed to pirouette and point at me while ballistic. That's when I realized that my suspicions about airborne maneuvering via split engine power were valid. I later used the tactic in dire circumstances against the Viper or Hornet. It was always a crowd pleaser." (Hall, Lawson, Parsons et al. Grumman F-14 Tomcat: Bye Bye, Baby. CA: Check Six, 2006. 83). So, it was possible and it was done, but I'd hazard a guess that next to no-one actually used it because its tactical applicability was so limited, atop being a pro-spin control input.

Man, this is a great trolling effort! I don't think you understand what the word "refute" means, nor the context to which I responded. You claimed that the F-14 can't go above 6g without disintegrating, in spite of its NATOPS limit (6.5g), Grumman's ultimate "g" of +13g, Grumman's safe operating envelope of +9g/-5.5g (or +8g with a 6-2 loadout with tanks), Grumman's design target (7.5g), or any of the real-world examples I provided where the plane was brought to beyond +12g symmetrical with no ill effect to the airplane, or the ACEVAL/AIMVAL data which showed that during a sliver of that exercise, the plane averaged beyond 7g about 3 times per hour of flight. Therefore, your claim is refuted. I myself never made any claims apart from a response to your 6g claim. The fact that you are now using 7.5g is itself an acceptance that your original claim was refuted. The fact that a TF-30 stalled in an asymmetrical 9-10g barrel roll is irrelevant to your initial argument. The plane was fine, Snort got the engine restarted. Also, I provided rough amounts of time, but just to amplify in Hoser's case, he brought the jet from 600 to under 200 and by the time Hawk reacquired him, Hoser already had the landing flaps down (Hoser used landing flaps consistently in a slow-speed fight in the F-14), so he was above your supposed 6g max for several seconds. This is covered in Hawk's biography which I cited. All of the other things which you bring up do nothing to help your original argument. Your claim is refuted, good Sir, and there is no reason to waste any more time with a troll. This actually reminds me of that scene from "Kung Pow: Enter the Fist" - "I'm bleeding more, that means I win!"

This has been discussed on these forums plenty of times before. At the risk of posting this only to get a snide and dismissive remark back, OP asked for some examples of the F-14's actual "g" capability in the real world (that it can pull more than 6g) while also providing a few non-sequiturs (e.g., Kara Hultgreen's death which was caused by impact with the ocean due to ejection as her aircraft rotated past the horizon due to a compressor stall induced by pilot error and not following the bold face while she was flying the same jet that pulled a 10.2g avoidance maneuver 13 years prior; and an F-14 which was destroyed due to an engine failure that led to an explosion and blaming it on a 6g pull). So, apart from the fact that Grumman considered the aircraft's safe symmetrical operating envelope +9 to -5.5g, and +8g with 6x AIM-54, 2x AIM-9 and two tanks [1], that the original design requirement was +7.33g, but Grumman's performance design point was 7.5g, e.g., for wing sweep and glove-vane assisted "g" authority [2], that the ultimate symmetrical limit was considered +13g [3], there several examples of beyond 9g pulls by real-world F-14s that I can think of where the aircraft was completely undamaged after the fact. Just a few examples of which I am aware: +12.2g by "Hoser" Satrapa in a guns-D pull against "Hawk" Smith during ACEVAL/AIMVAL[4]. The way both "Hoser" and "Hawk" discussed the pull from either of their perspectives was that this was a last-ditch absolute max g pull to deny Hawk a gun shot, meaning Hoser was well above 6.5g for several seconds as he initiated the pull at 600 knots. Hawk described the airplane becoming a vapor ball in the next-to-zero humidity of the TACTS range above Nellis, emphasizing how much "g" Hoser pulled to get away. The plane was X-rayed and not a single thing was out of place, other than Tomcat RIO "Hill Billy" Hill's vertebrae - he was down for 3 days after the yank. +12.5g by "Okie" Nance after an adjustment to the stick forces which he was apparently not briefed on [5] +10.2g by "Music" Muczynski to avoid Su-22 FITTER wreckage [6] +11g by "Jambo" Ray during a training event [7] +10g by "Snort" Snodgrass in a real-world SAM defense during ODS [8] +9.1g by "Faceshot" Consalvi in a real-world MANPADS SAM defense during OIF [9] >9g by "Paco" Chierici who also stated that the maintainers didn't really care until you put on more than 9.5g for the F-14, and stated he was routinely at 8g in the F-14. [9] 10.1g max g recordings on a VF-32 F-14 SparrowHawk HUD on cruise films [10] Repeated pulls to +8.5g by "Magic" Quist during training in the late 1970s [Tomcat-Sunset, source no longer available] Anecdotally, "g" stories always come up with F-14 pilots and RIOs, and invariably they seem to get into the 8 to over 10 region. Typically, if the pull is symmetrical, the plane comes out OK. That said, I believe Victory205 mentioned an 8g pull that jammed a slat by someone. There were a lot of discussions on Tomcat-Sunset back in the day on "g" and the F-14; at ACEVAL/AIMVAL, the going guidance was "whatever it takes;" over here: there is a statistical analysis of F-14 "g" pulls during ACEVAL/AIMVAL (only 31 hours of data were analyzed; the exercise comprised hundreds of sorties) going from -2.5 to +9.5; you will note that the plane exceeded 6.5g 91 times in those 31 hours (to include asymmetrically) and none exploded. Even Hoser's jet (F-14A Block 90 BuNo 159827) wasn't retired until more than 20 years after the 12.2g "yank." So, there you have it. The F-14 should not explode at 0.5g under its NATOPS limit. The examples you provided were not related to overstress. No F-14 ever ripped its wings off in real life, for that matter, let alone detonated because of an overstress. I hope you find this educational and useful. Cheers. Sources: [1] Ed. Lake, Jon, "F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter" (London, Aerospace Publishing, 1998), 78; Stevenson J.P., "F-14 Tomcat" (PA: TAB Aero, 1975), 53, 68. [2] Lake "F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter," 66-68; Stevenson, "F-14 Tomcat," 59; Mike Ciminera, F-14A Design Evolution, "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUCixAeZ0A" 19:10-19:25 [3] maxsin1972, "Top Gun pilot Capt Dale "Snort" Snodgrass Lectures At The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZ0Q6anxbo 45:35-46:00 [4] Tomcat-Sunset discussion, source no longer available, & Auten, Donald E, "Roger Ball!" (New York: iUniverse Star, 2006), 352-353. [5] Keith Nance, Q&A with Keith "Okie" Nance, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKA3ITCZt9o [6] The Museum of Flight, "The American Fighter Aces Association's F-14 Tomcat Panel Discussion," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f5pmrePuQw 45:39-46:10 [7] The Fighter Pilot Podcast, "TOPGUN Instructors React to 'Top Gun: Maverick'," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5tJA9pluxY 21:15-22:03 [8] maxsin1972, "Capt Dale "Snort" Snodgrass Lectures," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZ0Q6anxbo 44:30-45:26 [9] Fight's On Military Aviation Enthusiasts, "Speed And Angels (Unofficial) Reunion - Jay, Megan, Peyton & Paco talk about the F-14 Tomcat," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK4EP7Sbg1Q 1:05:50 - 1:06:45 [10] flysupertomcat1, "VF-32 Final Tomcat cruise video pt.1", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI73mzmfr2I 5:05-5:10

Going through the reference document, this is from an experiment done with the M-197 Gatling Gun, testing to see if there is an improvement in accuracy by replacing its original barrel clamps with M61A1 clamps (muzzle clamp alone, and then muzzle and mid-barrel clamps together). It shows the difference in dispersion of the M-197 baseline, an M-197 with a modified (M61A1) muzzle clamp, and an M-197 with a modified (M61A1) muzzle and mid-barrel clamp. It does not show the dispersion/mil data for the M61A1 Vulcan cannon.

Well, since you have no plans to try to improve, or take any advice from anyone, don't bitch about getting flamed to either the developer or to the virtual Turkey community.

Well, just trying to help, but since you don't want any, good luck.

Not the worst advice: 3 part series, people have their opinions of the Reapers, but VHS has some useful stuff if you're just looking for recommendations.

I'm guessing (seriously, not to be a dick) that you're flying it like it is represented in other, more arcady games. In DCS, you actually have to take the time to learn the plane and feel out the envelope, what it likes, what it doesn't. I'm a casual player and fly with other casual players so understand my perspective doesn't come from someone who is spending every extra second in the dogfight servers. I've been perfectly able to gun F-16s, F/A-18s, Mirage 2000s, etc., by flying the jet over and over, getting killed, learning, trying again, succeeding, but never, EVER winning every time because that won't happen. A positive ratio tells me I'm having a decent night. Pay attention to your airspeed and angle of attack. Don't put the stick in your lap because you'll burn all of your energy at once and end up with the jet both over-g'd (possibly with a dicked up gunsight and HUD because the gyroscope is in pieces), and without any energy left to do anything with. That little white bar on the AoA indicator is your best friend between about 300 and 380-ish knots (feel free to nit-pick that); above it, you're burning energy, below it, you're gaining energy, and at it, you're sustaining your energy. See where the jet holds its knots, where it loses them, where it gains them. Actually feel out the envelope. USE THE RUDDERS!!!one1!!!! (Get the emphasis?) Test it against the AI on "Ace" mode, because that's relatively easy. Now, start applying it. Go into some 1v1s without trying to pull the wings off. Laugh when you hit the silk and think about what you did wrong and what you can do to improve, cheer when you make the other guy do it. The Tomcat is a hell of a deadly machine if you take the time to learn it. If you don't, it's punishing and irritating. A Viper or Hornet is easy to bring up because they have a computer to make up for your lack of skill. A Tomcat doesn't, which makes it that much sweeter when you start blasting those others out of the sky with some regularity - you've actually learned to fight. My 2 cents. Feel free to disregard, I don't care. Just hoping to improve your experience.

Just ran a test scenario against AI F-5s trying to splash an E-2D. The missile is definitely even more deadly since this update - lobbed one AIM-54A at 60NM and another at 50NM, both killed their targets with speed to spare at terminal in spite of their best efforts to dive and run. Nota Bene: I launched at Angels 31 and 1.2M against the F-5s at about 25,000 feet and 0.6M - the missiles definitely had both the altitude and launch speed to their advantage, but still, they had a lot of Schlitz (1.95M and 1.86M, respectively). Haven't tested the low-altitude regime yet, but up high, they're a force to be reckoned with.

Might be in the future, I'm just referencing the FAQs because that's the most official reference. HB may well build the whole Phantom family, but at least according to the FAQs, the first F-4E to be released will be from a bit later.

Recommend reading the FAQs. #2 would indicate "kind of"... the first E-model Phantom released will be from roundabouts 1974, which is after most American action in Vietnam. However, there is a technicality: Operation Frequent Wind took place in April 1975, where Navy and Air Force Phantoms performed their final combat sorties over Vietnam. I'm not certain all of the aircraft involved, but am aware F-4Ds were flying for the USAF from the 34th TFS, 388th TFW. The 388th did have F-4Es assigned during OFW from the 44th TFS. For the USN, F-4Ns from VF-151 and -161 aboard the USS Midway (alongside F-14As from Enterprise on their combat debut) were involved. So, that being said, if the first F-4E is going to be from around 1974, it's from after almost all of the combat was done for the US Military, but it would be appropriate for OFW, so technically a Vietnam-era Phantom.

While this quote was made more than 40 years later, this is far from the first time it was used. The F-14A's top speed was quoted in the open-source world by James Perry Stevenson in 1975, albeit with an apparent typo listing its top speed as 2.5M instead of 2.4M[1]. It was amplified in Jon Lake's 1998 "Grumman F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfightter": "Later the Tomcat exceeded its Mach 2.4 limit, the pilot chopping the throttles to decelerate when he reached a reported Mach 2.41, still accelerating." [2] Former TOPGUN CO "Wigs" Ludwig actually claimed an even higher 2.5M, but he was speaking anecdotally[3]. These things having been said, it wouldn't surprise me if it were part of a disinformation campaign to say a loaded Tomcat could hit 2.4M (or 2.5M) to make the Soviets spend money to counter it. Practically, the plane is slower, and it wouldn't surprise me if to hit 2.41 the plane had to have its engines and ramps tweaked in a way different from operational F-14s. References: 1. James Perry Stevenson, Grumman F-14 "Tomcat", TAB Aero Publishing, London, 1975, 24. 2. Jon Lake (ed.), Grumman F-14 Tomcat Shipborne Superfighter, Aerospace Publishing, London, 1998, 36. 3. Grumman F-14 Tomcat Bye Bye Baby!, Zenith Press, MN, 2006, 175.

With the AI update, just about every shot you take is going to have to be a lot closer. I have the Tacview of an engagement on Through the Inferno where a player flying an F/A-18C tried to splash a 3-ship of Fulcrums, flying at 0.91 and about 33,000 feet, launching against the lead MiG-29A at 28.54nm, while the MiG-29A was closing at 1.21M at over 34,000 feet. The Fulcrum performed one of the craziest defenses I've ever seen, not even starting to threat-react until 8.33nm. Harsh dive with high-g, out-pulled the missile, then pulled back up, recommitted and continued towards the Hornet (who probably lost SA and continued firing AMRAAMs at the other two - one at 28.84nm at 1.03M and 36087ft, and the next at 14.04nm at 34066ft and 0.76M). Not a single AMRAAM hit, every Fulcrum managed to defeat every missile fired at those altitudes and high closure velocities, and the lead MiG killed the Hornet with an R73 face-shot. Myself and another Hornet closed on the same Fulcrum flight, I managed to kill one of them launching at 47.05nm from 38703ft and 1.15M; the AIM-54 that hit, hit a Fulcrum that appears to have tried to stay slow, getting no higher than 0.4M at about 30000ft. My second AIM-54 (fired at 38nm) at a fast-closing (lead) MiG-29 bit off on chaff. The F/A-18 that followed behind me hit the other two, firing one AMRAAM at 20.8nm at 37000ft against the closing Fulcrum at 1.9M (yes, 1.9) and 38000ft. I thought I got him with an AIM-9 but going back over the Tacview, it was the F/A-18's AMRAAM that just beat my Sidewinder to the bandit. His second AMRAAM was launched at the last Fulcrum from 15nm at 34550ft and 1.02M against the Fulcrum at 30156ft and 1.16M. So, in this engagement: 5 AMRAAMs fired, all high altitude, all under 30nm, 2 hit 2 Phoenix fired, both high altitude, one high closure, one low closure, 1 hit, 1 had the potential to hit but bit off on chaff Earlier in the flight I also shot down an F-4 from 44.9nm at high altitude, but that AI was set to normal and didn't do any truly hard maneuvers (weird diving spiral thing that the missile didn't really need to adjust to make the intercept point). Suffice to say that with this update, even going against AI you're going to have to adjust your tactics regardless of which missile you're using; Phoenix, AMRAAM, or otherwise.