Quid

Well, TopEdge has the bigger/more noticeable changes, but you'd notice a few between Block 95 and Block 135 - the Engine Stall Warning System (L STALL/R STALL lights and tone) were installed from 1982 (would not be in an Iranian F-14), the AIM-9 seeker head position on the HUD wasn't added until 1985 (probably as a standard during Block 135 production, would not be in an Iranian F-14), the spoilers were adjusted to lock down at 62 degrees rather than 57, etc. Some of the changes were internal, some were software, some were airframe, landing gear (higher gross weight landings allowed at 54,000lbs vs. 51,800lbs), etc. So, there were further modifications to the airframe happening, but it starts to become excessive to try to fit all of the changes into a short paragraph at the top of a page.

Detailed information about the HUDs are in the NATOPS volumes, but those can't be shared. The F-14D's also removed most of the HUD's combat symbology to another supplement (F-14AAD-1A), but a point of direct comparison is for TARPS; almost the entire HUD is the same between the two, but the SparrowHawk shows (or can show) all of the navigation and waypoint data in the lower right (not shown on the Kaiser), as well as radar or camera mode, and 3 different airspeeds (Kaiser only shows IAS). So, again, comparable but not exactly the same. As to your question about the circular speed indicator, both can use it, but the SparrowHawk flops over to boxes in different modes.

They were probably ordered and/or production began in 1984; I think that's from Torsten Anft's site. Paul Gillcrist's "TOMCAT! The Grumman F-14 Story" has the delivery dates of every airframe (DD-250 date), which was my source for when the Block 135s actually started showing up (first one 17 April 1985, last one 25 March 1986). Differences in the blocks can be found in numerous sources; topedge has a nice little consolidation at the top of each block page and it seems mostly accurate. Some changes happened as the block was happening, especially early on; for example, the boat tail modification happened during Block 75, and there's picture evidence of early line Block 75s with the original configuration, and later Block 75s with the new one.

Indeed it is convoluted; the Block 135 Late is really a Frankenplane; the F-14A didn't get the ALR-67 until some time around 2001 based on video and photographic evidence; even the NATOPS doesn't list the system by 2004 (the final -A NATOPS), but cruise footage from 2002 shows the system clearly. By the time the A model got the ALR-67, it already had the PTIDS and DFCS for several years. IIRC HB have said they don't have the documentation to accurately model either PTIDS or DFCS, so we won't be seeing either in spite of having an even later RWR system. The Block 135 Early should be a close representation of the plane from about 1985 to 1995.

The two are comparable but different. The F-14D HUD was made by Kaiser Aerospace (bought by Rockwell Collins in 2000), while the SparrowHawk was developed by FlightVisions Inc. (which by the time of delivery became CMC Electronics). The two have similar symbology, but the SparrowHawk is newer and has a wider FOV. In the attached images, you can see the differences between the two, from the combining glass to the shape and the FOV. Top image is the SparrowHawk, bottom is the Kaiser. (Images Removed) EDIT: Image Source: Danny Coreman, Danny Coreman's Uncovering the Grumman F-14A/B/D Tomcat, (Antwerp Belgium: DACO Publications, 2018), 77, 87. EDIT 2: Removed images - material is copyrighted by the author. Recommend checking the source book to see the difference.

I'm all about variety, but the Block 135 was first delivered in 1985 with the majority of the block delivered in 1986. Given that the AIM-7M was already in service by 1982, the oldest model Sparrow one would expect to find on a front line F-14 by this time would be the AIM-7F (introduced operationally between 1976 and 1977).

If it's done right, it will be the E/J/P family of AIM-9s (Iran didn't buy the D/G/H Navy versions, nor did it receive the L before the revolution), and the E-family Sparrows. Heatblur did say something to the effect of they would see what's available in DCS. Just from rudimentary mission building, I know the AIM-7E is available on the AI F-4 and the AIM-9P is on the F-5, so I'd assume those could be added to the IRIAF F-14, but we'll see what they come up with in the end. The AIM-54A is the only version Iran operated; not sure if they ever got anything other than the Mk 47 motor. The Hawk is a probable negative based on discussion in some other threads, and considering it had problems "talking" to the AWG-9, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

No, that's the Kaiser AN/AVG-12. Only the B had the SparrowHawk. I think there's confusion because both are modern HUDs in F-14s, but the B's is actually even newer with a wider field of view than the D's.

Just an addendum to this - I've received a copy of the 1 November 1975 F-14A NATOPS; the F-14's g-limit was already 6.5g symmetrical out to 49,548lbs at that point (the date of the chart is 1 November 1973); note the aircraft was lighter at this time with a gross weight of 40,070lbs; combat weight would have been about 51,200 lbs (60% fuel, 2x Sparrow, 2x Sidewinder, gun). The biggest differences I notice in this from later volumes is that the early F-14A appears to have had a lower g-limit if the maneuver flaps were extended at this time: 5.5g out to 49,548lbs, and then descending (akin to the chart Victory205 posted) which was eliminated later on. As I wrote earlier and as just about everyone here is aware, the original design requirement was 7.5g, but if the date on the chart is correct (1973), it would have been the same in the first published operational NATOPS from 1 June 1974, and the Tomcat never actually had that higher limit operationally. And yes, I'm well aware and have posted even in this thread that Tomcats have managed to get back unscathed with over 12g, etc., etc., but in line with OP's question and the discussions hereafter, the official NATOPS limit appears to have been 6.5g symmetrical to just under combat weight since fleet introduction.

I agree with you 100% here.

I didn't say they couldn't, I said the Navy already had a kind-of replacement available (the SH wasn't ever meant to be a replacement for the F-14, but in the post-Cold War environment, it was perceived to be able to fill the mission well enough), so they didn't have a reason to. As to why they went with the SH, that's been written about to exhaustion over the past 28 years. Had they chosen to go with the F-14D or something beyond (ST21, "F-14E," etc.), there may have been a reason to extend the older ones or re-build them into later models (like the F-14D(R) and F-14KB, which did include service life extensions from the basic F-14A they were built out of) but that is all hypothetical. I did not answer your questions well, however. "And simply put the Eagles are still around, the costs to extend their lives did not exceed their usefulness unlike the cat." The F-15's replacement got axed. It shows that we still need it because we can't replace it. If the same were true of the F-14, they'd still be flying as well, but post-Cold War leadership chose a different path. "New Eagles coming of the line are cleared for 9 all the way up to 20,000 hours vs 7000 for Tomcat." After airframe modifications, sure. The F-15 was originally rated for 4,000 hours. "F-14Ds we're not given any such acceptable load increase, when they we're new." The F-14B/D did have an appreciable load increase, actually - if you check the -1.1, the aircraft have an extended symmetrical load limit out to 55,585 combat weight (contradicting the -1, interestingly enough), while the "A's" is lower. That said, all Navy aircraft have lower g limits than Air Force, and it's no wonder: catapult assisted take-offs at high weights, arrested landings and saltwater environment leading to increased fatigue, etc. "So IF they could have extended the envelope, then the question is why didn't they?" Ask the Navy. "If the airframes were that sound why didn't they last longer?" They lasted as long as they needed to until replacement. The F-15's SLEP to 18,000 or 20,000 (whatever your source) didn't start until 2011 when it was clear the F-22A wasn't ever getting its production lines restarted and that the F-15 was going to have to stay for the foreseeable future. Rebuilt F-14s did see life extensions. "Why did they break so often?" Not sure what you mean here? Every fighter breaks, every fighter requires maintenance, and even newer aircraft are consistently "broken". Hell the Super Hornet's operationally ready rate between 2017 and 2018 was uner 50%. Why are they breaking so often? Why are they always down? Even those "operationally ready" are not necessarily fully mission capable, certain systems and subsystems may be bent, but it can still do most of or certain missions. This is also true for the F-15.

Simple, the F-15 was originally slated to be retired ca. 2012 like the F-14 (original planned 2007 for the A, 2008 for the B, 2012 for the D), but its replacement (F-22A) got the axe at 187 planes. The Air Force HAD to extend the F-15 because it didn't have the numbers to replace it. The Navy had the F/A-18E/F to backfill the F-14, so the Navy had no reason to perform a SLEP on the Turkey.

Verily, but OP's question was specifically about g-limits (and how to tell you're not overshooting them without looking down into the cockpit), if they were followed/complied with, how closely, and if the AI follows them. Hence all the talk about "g", and not specifically about rate/radius, Ps, sustained/instantaneous turn rates, etc.

If you're waiting for a response from someone who actually flew it, I think the only Tomcat pilot here is Victory205, so if he chimes in, you'll get it from a SME. The thing someone like him had in the real jet was the actual "g" forces he had to fight against. That's something we in the virtual world do not have, and cannot be used as an indicator. Within the virtual world, Buzzles, Sideburns and I all provided ways in which the plane communicates to you: shaking (aural and visual feedback), heavy breathing, blackening of the screen, as well as recommendations for curves or adjusted springs (if available) and practice. If you want to, you can also turn on your aircraft's statistics display at the bottom of the screen if you don't want to look back into the cockpit while you get the feel of the jet, so you can see live how much "g" you're putting on at a given stick pull, then start building muscle memory. The plane doesn't have JHMCS or a "g" readout on the HUD, so the only way you will know is by the jet's cues, looking at the accelerometer, or by turning on the bar at the bottom. As to your other questions, apart from Victory205, plenty has been said by Tomcat aircrews regarding "g" and how much the limits were complied with. The limits were absolutely real, otherwise they wouldn't be in the aircraft's operating manuals. But, compliance is another question; usually in immediate life-threatening situations, it wasn't. "Music" pulled over 11g to avoid the debris of "his" Fitter when he shot it down so that he wouldn't lose the aircraft by FOD-ing the engine with Fitter parts, but the initial turn at the merge was about 7g. "Snort" did about 10g to defend against a SAM, in the process stalling an engine and departing the jet. "Faceshot" did a beyond-9g defensive break (9.5?) when he was fired upon by a MANPADS while he was in VF-32 after a strafing run to evade the missile. If it is more likely that the plane won't fly again by following the limits, it might be better not to. There are examples of peacetime when the limits weren't adhered to strictly, but everyone who talks about this knows they were not supposed to pull what they did. "Hoser," "Rookie" and "Okie" all did beyond 12g pulls in peacetime BFM. In 1976 another Tomcat driver did back-to-back 8.5g turns against an aggressor A-4 as a student and was simply marked above average for aggressiveness. The thing is, in either war or peacetime when you overstress the jet, you give maintenance and mission planners problems. The jet is unavailable until it can be inspected and cleared for flight. If systems did break, they need to be replaced. If you bent the jet, it might be a crane-off at the end of the cruise, unavailable for operations entirely. Just because it happened doesn't mean it was something that was done commonly, and the training standard/techniques would have been to the g-limit of the aircraft in most cases. As to the AI, I have no idea, but I've never seen the AI break a jet that wasn't already damaged so I'd guess it probably doesn't get damaged if it overshoots the limits.

WRT not massively overstressing the jet, I concur with Buzzles here - practice above all! Depending on your stick, you may or may not benefit from curves; I've got no curve on mine, but I'm running a VKB F-14CG and I've got heavy springs on both axes. Combined with what the plane "tells" me from its audible and visual shaking (I sometimes compare it to Principal McVicker from Beavis & Butthead), and the heavy breathing as described by Sideburns, I have an idea of where I'm at and roughly how much "g" I've got on the jet based on how far back I'm pulling and how much resistance the springs are giving me. Of course, it doesn't always work and in virtual combat, I will overstress the jet under certain circumstances and I can usually tell that I have (those, "aaaand the accelerometer's probably pegged right now" moments). I've found this true as well. Above 9, you're pretty much rolling the dice as to whether or not a system will break. Yes, sometimes IRL the plane came back pristine with a 12.2g yank, other times parts broke at a little over 8g (examples of both can be found in these forums). In DCS, I've had the gyros break at just shy of 9 during a defensive break, and other times I've pegged the accelerometer and reviewed the TacView and everything held together in a 12g defensive yank. If you keep it in the region of 8-9g at absolute maximum (I try to go no more than 7.5g maximum if I can help it) the plane's systems will typically work fine.

Literally every published NATOPS dating back to at least 1980. Here's the best part: it's the aircraft's symmetrical "g" limit out to just shy of 50,000lbs. If you're above that, it starts getting lower. At about 53,200 it's 6.0g. If you're right off the cat with some heavy stores hanging out at 68,000lbs, it's only 4.75g. Asymmetrical (rolling) is even lower, starting at 5.24g out to about 50,000lbs and dropping as low as 3.8g at 68,000. The thing is, every single fighter is like this. The F/A-18, F-16, etc., are no different (in fact, the F/A-18's limits at 52,000lbs roughly match the F-14's at 68,000). They all have a given g-limit for the basic aircraft to a certain weight, then it starts dropping, its asymmetrical g-limit is always lower, and this doesn't even consider the stores limits or takeoff/landing configuration limits; you'll hear aircrews say things like "overstress the pod" or "overstress the bomb" because they exceeded the limit of the targeting pod or the bomb or the missile, etc. DCS players are now becoming all too familiar with overstressing the flaps of the F-14 since they've had their damage model updated. The F-14 and "g" is always long argued because different numbers exist from different times. The original design specification was 7.5g, which is why when you read early books and programmatic documents on the F-14 you always see a "7.5g design limit" - wings sweep at 4 degrees per second at 7.5g, the glove vanes allow 7.5g maneuvering at 2.0M, etc. Grumman themselves brought the structural test aircraft "safely to +9.0g and -5.5g," and "8.0g even with 6x AIM-54s, 2x AIM-9s and 2x tanks." Then there's all the stories of Tomcats taking turns at ridiculous "g" and not breaking (at least immediately) so there is a tendency in DCS to throw out any g-limit regardless. This doesn't change the fact that 6.5g was the settled upon "official" limit of the aircraft, and only to its original combat weight before it gained more than 4,000lbs from airframe changes, TF-30 engine sheaths, etc. between 1972 and 1984.

Stunning work!

They can be found in the -1.1s, Chapter 8, both mil power and max AB.

I'd say that's true for most of the drama for most of the DCS modules out there...

Wait…you’re telling me I have only 4.33g asymmetrical at 60,000lbs and that if I drop the flaps at that weight I’ve only got 1.6g!? B…b…but MUH’ IRONWORKZ!!!! Seriously, though, I’m not sure how many aircraft actually have variable stress modeled based on weight, rolling, stores, etc. IIRC the F/A-18 at least has a variable limiter (for symmetrical anyways), but just pull that flappy paddle and they all go away. I think people would be surprised how much it changes and how low the limits get for all different airframes depending on what stores they’re packing and how heavy they are.

EDIT: Didn't see this was a necropost, but given that this is an issue currently, this is what I've noticed: Issue could be related to Malwarebytes. Several people have had this problem, including me. It was blocking the following .dlls needed to run the Tomcat: Program Files\DCS World Openbeta\Mods\aircraft\F14\bin\F14-HeatblurCommon.dll " " F14-FlightModel.dll " " F14-Avionics.dll This creates some strange problems, if it does load at all, you can get in the jet and it's just dead (no controls work, no avionics are on, but you are in the cockpit), it will fall through the ground and explode, etc. Otherwise, it disables the module. Check to see if you've got new items in your quarantine, restore and then whitelist them.

Do you have Malwarebytes by chance? A number of people (including me) had to whitelist three .dll files in the F-14 which MWB was triggering on and trying to quarantine. You have to restore, then whitelist the files if that's the problem. It was very similar to what you describe.

I haven't heard about whatever effects there were for the 12.5g pulls certain aircrews have mentioned doing (e.g., Okie, Rookie), but I do know Hoser's 12.2g defensive break against Hawk during the ACEVAL/AIMVAL workups was recorded by the TACTS range at Nellis. They ran two more sets after the "yank" (which got the fight neutral, then advantage Hoser before a knock-it-off/deck) before the plane came back.1 Hoser elaborated "The high 'g' hurt Hill Billy's neck and he was out of the hunt for a few days. We had the brand new Blk 90 Turkey x-rayed, inspected and gone over by a team of Grummanites...not a lo[o]se rivet, zero skin wrinkles, perfect engine mounts, no hyd or fuel leaks; Just a broke RO."2 It is important to remember that the plane involved was brand new at the time. EDIT: The aircraft involved was BuNo 159827. It was stricken from the Navy 14 January 1997. References: 1. Donald E. Auten, Roger Ball! The Odyssey of John Monroe "Hawk" Smith, Navy Fighter Pilot, (New York: iUniverse Star Press, 2006), 353-354. 2. Joe "Hoser" Satrapa, archived from Tomcat-Sunset.org.

So, I've heard both in the A, and it was the first time I successfully got the jet past 2.0M. The next time, I only got the bingo call. Another time, I got nothing. Seems to be inconsistent, but just from that first flight, I do know it does work.

That's not right. Production of Block 135 didn't start until FY1984 (October 1983-September 1984), with the first of that block delivered 17 April 1985. Updates to that standard would have started even later, and even then given the above conversation that doesn't make sense. Heck, VF-1 and -2 were flying block 135s and 140s in 1988 and 1989 when some of those photos were taken and they had functional glove vanes.