Quid

What do you mean by "very early"? Just going through a cursory scan of a number of books, they were consistently rolled out between 1987 and 1989 for VF-1 and VF-2, I have shots of VF-143 with vanes out during 1988, VF-41 during ODS in 1991 and again in 1992 (so, maybe they re-unlocked them?), VF-33 in 1992, VF-84 in 1993, NAWC ca.1995. That doesn't seem very early, and while I know that they were eventually unplugged and locked shut fleet-wide, it clearly wasn't very early on if they were still functional in certain squadrons 20 years after IOC.

I've posted about this several times, apart from the fact that the 1997 NATOPS still hadn't eliminated them as a system (they are nowhere to be found by 2003), photographic evidence indicates that they were deactivated across the 1990s, becoming more and more rare as the decade drew on. I don't know where or why people seem to think they were being locked shut during the early 1980s when new build F-14As were rolling off the production lines with fully functional vanes, and they were commonly rolled out for photo ops across that entire decade. Regardless, HB has stated on numerous occasions they aren't modelling them, so unless they change their tune, they won't be on either the -135 early or the -95.

This. Can confirm in VR it's easy to see the yaw string. Left click on it.

Like an idiot, I didn't save the track file and only realized it after I hit the mission editor button, but I have more data to report. I was successfully able to get the jet past 2.0M twice, the second time according to TacView 2.48M in a straight line without the engines exploding at 1.1M. I apparently can't upload the TacView recording, unless there's a way around limitations on .acmi files, but what I did in both cases was accelerate at lower altitude past 1.1M. On the first flight, I was at 18026ft, on the second, I was at 12894 as I passed the "magic number." I continued to accelerate in a shallow climb until reaching about 40000 feet on the first flight, and at 38434 on the second. I set autopilot on on the second (yes, I know it's over the NATOPS limit) and no explosion. In both cases, the plane continued to accelerate until I was close to fuel starvation and had to cut throttles and coast to a base to land, both times landing with about 900lbs of fuel remaining. So, the plane doesn't always explode at 1.1M - it seems as though every time I start at lower altitudes and accelerate through, the plane is fine. This is also what happened during my earlier gun fights followed by speed runs. Only starting at 35,000 feet, accelerating and hitting 1.1M seems to have cause an explosion. If someone knows how to post .acmis, I can post the TacViews, or I can go back and re-record and not forget to hit the "save track" button again. Just wanted to pass along more findings.

I'm aware of that, actually, but it's not on account of the engines.

Well, my theory is ruined - it just blew up at 1.1M on PG without A/P. See attached track. Now, time to test on other maps... EDIT: now they're blowing up on Nellis either with or without A/P (track 4). This is strange, because as I mentioned above, I got it to just below 2.1M on Nellis post-BFM... Eng_Fire_3.trk Eng_Fire_4.trk

Did you ever turn your autopilot on? For me, it hasn't exploded without it, but now "diditopgun" apparently had the plane detonate without turning on A/P. I haven't. WRT max speed, I'm sure it will reach 2.4M straight and level with enough time and fuel, and it was still accelerating pretty well when I throttled back during the Nellis test - I just didn't have the gas to keep flying and land (touched down with 900lbs).

Was your autopilot on? I just dropped something into the bugs problems forums on this. Without the A/P on, I've got the jet above 2.0M, with it on, it blows up regularly at 1.1M.

Okay, so I ran a few more tests; I think this might be related directly to the autopilot. While I was doing some clean, guns-only BFM tests, I decided to do a speed run on the way back to Nellis, and with a clean jet, no A/P, I got it to break 2.0M without catching fire (just shy of 2.1M and still accelerating, but burned down to under 2000lbs to get there!). After this, I re-ran my standard-day flight model test again, set autopilot, brought the throttles slowly up to Zone 5, let the plane run, and sure enough, right at around 1.1M, they exploded. Unfortunately, I forgot to take a track that time, but it was the same thing as the previous two attempts. Reviewing the TacView and tracks, 1.1M appears to be the magic number - every time the jet hit 1.1M with autopilot on, the engines blew up.

Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening, Congratulations on the F-14A release! I've noticed a potential bug: while testing out the F-14A flight envelope, I've noticed the TF-30 engines have been having trouble punching past about 1.1M at high altitude (~35,000-38,000 feet). I did an initial flight test (deck launched intercept vs. 2x F-5Es) and noticed on the way back that the plane was not getting very fast in max A/B; I figured maybe this was because I still had tanks, rails, etc., and got the jet to about 1.5-ish in a dive (through 15,000 feet from 30,000). So, I figured I'd do some speed runs to compare to the F110. I stripped all of the rails, tanks, etc. and ran the mission in Persian Gulf (US Standard Day conditions) to see how fast the plane would go. As it was taking a while to get past 1.1M, I switched on the auto-pilot and after a few more seconds got twin stall warnings, and also a fire warning. I switched to external, and both engines were on fire. I figured that was strange. So, I restarted without touching my physical throttles (still at max), loaded back in, and once the game noticed their position, the engines exploded again. I didn't take a track of that one, figuring it was the mechanical components of the engine modeled going from 0 to 100% in a fraction of a second. That was my fault. Brought the throttles back to 0, restarted, no fire, good. I throttled the engines to Zone 5, turned on autopilot, waited for it to accelerate, and again, just past 1.1M, the engines exploded. Now, when I was going above 1.47M in the dive in the initial mission, I didn't turn on autopilot. So far, a common factor seems to be the A/P as the plane goes beyond supersonic. I've attached two tracks for analysis. I'll try to fly a few more in a bit, but have been testing other areas of the envelope. Cheers! Eng_Fire_1.trk Eng_Fire_2.trk

Gorgeous!

It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds…I said I’m out, but I’ll provide this: Yes, I basically said your post added nothing, but I never attacked you yourself. You attacked me directly, talking about reading and comprehension without doing so yourself, and completely missing the F-16 mech’s comment that was aimed at the F-14, not the F-15. I never claimed victimhood, rather spelled out that you went for the person, not any argument. I don’t care about what someone I don’t know says about me online, and I despise people who play the victim. That said, I was not constructive. That is true. If you want the 1970’s data, it’s in line with your earlier comments about how little is actually published ("snippets from books and such"), but that is, as I said earlier, all that can be used in such a forum like this, and if anything else has fallen out into the open source, great! The following comes from two books, “TOMCAT! The F-14 Story” by RADM Paul T. Gillcrist, and “The Great Book of Modern Warplanes.” “Sea-skimming missile test: One of the greatest concerns the Navy had was its inability to counter the Soviet cruise missile skimming over the tops of the waves. Even if it could be acquired and distinguished from the radar return of the water’s surface it was almost impossible for the weapon’s fuze to function properly for the warhead to damage the target. Usually, the fuzing action was caused by the proximity of the water’s surface resulting in a premature detonation. In this test, which occurred on 8 June 1973, “Smoke’s” airplane was cruising at an altitude of twenty-four thousand feet and a speed of Mach 0.92. The target was a QT-33 drone cruising at a speed of Mach 0.72 and a height of just fifty feet over the water. “Smoke’s” RIO acquired the target and a Phoenix missile was launched at a range of twenty-two nautical miles scoring a lethal hit. This was a real landmark in the technology struggle between U.S. and Soviet weaponry.” Gillcrist, 41-42. “Sea-skimming cruise missiles are among the most dangerous threats surface ships have to counter. Hugging the waves at high subsonic speed, their small size makes them difficult to detect. In this test, an unaugmented BMQ-34A flying at Mach 0.75 and just 50 feet was shot down by a Tomcat 22NM away from 10,000 feet.” The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, 632. In both cases, the aircraft was looking down, inside of 40NM against a sea-skimming target and fired the missile with success. As to its ability against fighters, there is only one range-based oft-repeated test that is readily available in the open source world, which has already been posted here about the QF-86 and its inability to shake the AIM-54A even after a 6g pull-out into the vertical from a dive. Otherwise, it’s Iranian claims, or the later model AIM-54C, which you have stated repeatedly is not the point of your ire, and therefore irrelevant. I don’t have an axe to grind, and my response was sarcastic, so I apologize for that. However, the amount of complaining about the AIM-54 and the idea that it shouldn't be able to hit anything at all regardless of how badly someone messes up their "d" is just annoying, and probably fed into why I responded the way I did. EDIT: Okay, wow, dude, stop editing your posts. I'm glad I kept your original, because you just changed it to the following: "Certainly no ad hominem, you posted some gobeldygook that had nothing to do with what I posted in some attempt to discredit it. And I really if you have any of that info on the 70's model phoenix, please share with the class: if you have it share it up or perhaps shut up, but I'm pretty sure you have exactly 0 info. From my perspective you're just some random internet deweeb that just started shitting on the post I shared with nothing productive to add. So its far too late to claim victimhood from where I sit, so..." An "ad hominem" is a "towards the person" - that is exactly what you did when you said I couldn't read or comprehend. Literal definition. I apologized for being sarcastic, then you changed your response, guess I'll stop doing that. I then posted about the tests from the 1970s, and then you bring up "0 info." Then you changed your "perspective." I think I want my apology back...

Thank you for the ad hominem. You know nothing about me, not about what I do, not about what I know or don't, so, I don't really care about any accusation you make. Open-source data is what is needed for any kind of discourse online, and there isn't much to come by regarding the A-model Phoenix after the 1970s, so that's what we have. As to the F-16 part, look at Jason Knight's response and you'll see what I'm quoting, it is specifically about the F-14 radar, not the F-15. The thing is, based on your responses, I see you're literally just in here to bitch and try to get into a pissing match, so I'm out.

Pretty much, but that's where most of the open-source data resides. In that site was a few "I'll take a whack at it" explanations, a "I worked on F-16's and never touched either the Tomcat or Phoenix - here's why not my plane, not my missile, from not my service sucks, and I don't know any of its actual engagement ranges" explanation including it didn't work in look-down under 40NM" when it was tested in look-down against a 50-foot AGL target drone at 22NM with a successful intercept., a few that explain the unique requirements to mount the AIM-54 (great, but how does that say anything about its performance?), a "the F-14 was an interceptor" (no) diatribe, and other irrelevant opinions. I don't see it adding anything. Nice edit, you don't know what I do or don't know, so...

So, opinions and RUMINT. Sweet.

Just about 2.1M if you're at 35,500, but it's going to take you about 9,200lbs of fuel and 6.5 minutes to get there. That's with clean glove pylons and no tanks, just 4x AIM-54 between the nacelles.

Not sure where you're going with this; most modern missiles only have range data because so few have been employed in actual combat. The AIM-9X failed on its initial use and is currently at a demonstrated 0%Pk. The R-27 family is more abysmal than the AIM-7E family by actual combat performance, while the late model versions have no combat data, only "snippets from books and such." The R-77 has never been used in combat, nor has the SD-10. The propensity of available combat data relevant to missiles seen in DCS is for the AIM-7F, AIM-7M, AIM-9L, AIM-9M, and early model AMRAAMs. Should we just throw out everything for those other missiles because of a lack of combat data? Since when has that mattered in DCS? Everyone on airquake servers loads 10 AMRAAMs on their F/A-18s, 8 on their F-15s, etc., fires them all at one or two targets and/or gets shot down, jumps into another, max load, rinse, repeat. That is insanely expensive and would cut down on stocks of both aircraft and missiles very quickly. Why is this only a problem for the AIM-54? ROEs also changed over time. VID and "do not fire until fired upon" were there in the early 1980s, by the late 1980s BVR shots were allowed. Not sure about how many, but see above. Keep either firing or losing 10 AMRAAMs per jet and see how long your stock lasts. As to its use against fighters, as "Bio" Baranek pointed out, they were considered for use against fighters in earnest by the late 1980s due to the Sparrow's inadequacy against threats like the R-27, and there is a reason Hughes was advertising the C model's 25g authority against maneuvering targets even by the mid-1980s.

Not immediately. See this from the Development Update: So, not yet.

I think Skysurfer got it; the 1997 Change 1 version includes the following: "Disengages all autopilot modes and DLC. Releases all autopilot switches. Disengages the pitch and roll servos and causes the pitch and roll SAS switches to move to OFF. The yaw SAS channels in either case are not affected..." So, that must have been a change around the time DFCS was coming online. The 1984 Change 1 version indicates this started with Airframe Change 400: "On aircraft BUNO 159859 and subsequent and aircraft with AFC 400, disengages the pitch and roll servos and causes the pitch and roll SAS switches to move to the OFF position. The yaw channels in either case are not affected."

No. They've explained this several times: the package is the F-14B, -A, AI A-6 and Forrestal. Not only that, but a modified F-14A more representative of the Iranian F-14A is included as well, so if you bought the F-14 package you get all of that. As to why, because variety is the spice of life, some people want to fly missions and campaigns where the F-14A is the more accurate jet to have, and with the IRIAF version, REDFOR will also have a more accurate variant of the jet than using the F-14B (and its more advanced variants of the Phoenix, Sparrow and Sidewinder) as a stand-in.

The F-14B tops out at 2.35M in DCS, not 2.15, you have to drop to 35,500 or so and be sure the jet is clean. The B does out-accelerate the A at all altitudes and airspeeds assuming the same loadouts, unless you are already going above 1.6M or so. If you have access to the 1.1s for the respective aircraft, you can see the differences. Both engines get the ram-air effect, but the F110 tapers it while the TF-30 doesn't.

The -1.1s (or -1-1s) are the performance manuals. The A's is the 01-F14AAA-1.1, the B and D use a common AAP-1.1. The flight manuals are the 01-F14AAA-1, AAP-1, and AAD-1, respectively. Yes, P, not B for the F-14B. Not sure why.

That would, assuming OP has access to it.

The 28,000lbs number for the TF-30 is at sea level, not 10,000 feet, so don't expect that much of a push at that altitude. Even so, it is impressive that the TF-30 goes from 17,077lbs installed thrust at 0 airspeed in afterburner to 28,000lbs at .9M from the ram-air effect (1.64x the thrust). The F110 starts at 23,600lbs installed at 0 airspeed and hits 30,200lbs at .9M (1.28x the thrust). As to rate of climb, it's complicated because like engine thrust, it is dynamic and it also depends on the aircraft's configuration and engine setting. Published numbers in reference books are just a point of performance, akin to listed engine thrust which is typically shown as uninstalled at static (e.g., the TF-30's 20,800lbs is the engine's static, uninstalled sea-level thrust. Actual thrust is a curve which changes depending on altitude, airspeed, and inlet shape for aircraft like the F-14 with its dynamic inlets). These things having been said, the number I've found across multiple references is 30,000+fpm for the F-14A's initial climb rate at sea level.

Based on Cooper & Bishop's book, you're correct. The AWG-9 had difficulty "talking" to the Hawk, and even though test firings were performed, the project was apparently abandoned shortly after the war ended in 1988. I think if any weapon modifications at all are done, it should be to provide a correct version of the Sparrow. The IRIAF F-14s use AIM-7E family which are available in DCS at least on the AI F-4 Phantoms, so I'd wonder if they could be used on the IRIAF F-14. The AIM-9P and AIM-54A are already there, so if the AIM-7E/-2 (or whichever models they have been using) can be modeled we'll have a decent representation of the airplane in Iranian service.