sLYFa

Indeed, the AWG-9 is not as capable as most people believe it should be. I found turning off auto PD-STT to P-STT to be helpful, since switching to P-STT may make the radar loose the target.

P-STT is not some unspoofable "super mode". Basically, P-STT drops doppler processing compared to PD-STT, thereby removing the doppler mode's blind spot around zero relative ground velocity (thus making notching by flying zero relative ground speed impossible). The radar can and will still be spoofed by chaff, which appear as false radar returns to both the radar and the missile. This means that while your radar may maintain track of the target, the missile can still go for the chaff. In fact, P-STT should be more prone to chaff spoofing than PD-STT, as neither the missile nor the radar have the ability to discriminate between chaff and actual target based on doppler shift. In a lookup situation, there really is no need to use P-STT. Instead, use PD-STT and turn of MLC rejection (if you have a human RIO, Jester can't do that yet AFAIK).

Assuming by "land based ILS" you mean the conventional civilian ILS operating in the VHF range, there is no way the F-14 can use that. The F-14s ARA-63 ICLS reciever is meant to be used with the AN/SPN41 ICLS system which works fundamentally different from conventional ILS. IRL some bases have an ICLS trailer that can be used to provide ILS capabality for USN aircraft, but we don't have these in DCS. The hornet we have in DCS cannot use normal ILS either. And please don't confuse ICLS and ACLS, these are two different systems. Buttom line, no ILS for the Cat at the beach

It will probably take decades for a unified european army to emerge, epsacially given the current anti european movement on the rise everywhere in europe. And even if that happens, I highly doubt the NATO will disappear or the US will just give up their bases they spent so much money and effort on.

Damn! The devil is in the details. Didn't see that, thanks for sharing. Chapter 4.1.6 actually for the non DFCS NATOPS

I didn't find any speed limitation on autopilot usage in any of the RW docs or HB's manual. I do seem to recall though that at high supersonic speeds, the autopilot (or just SAS? can't remember) starts to create roll oscilations.

Ok, disregard my last posts. After some more testing I found serious issues with the FM, namely when taking off from the carrier vs airstart. I did five flights, all with the same ambient conditions. In these flights, I tried to stay level and on AoA (15 units) in landing config (gear DN, flaps full, spoilers full, DLC on) 1st flight: TO from CV with Tanks+2SW+4PH, 20klbs fuel >70klbs weight Barely kept level flight in landing config at 99% N2, 8200PPH and 165kts 2nd flight: Airstart with Tanks+2SW+4PH, 20klbs fuel >70klbs weight Comfortably kept level flight at 96% N2, 7000PPH and 150kts 3rd flight:TO from CV with Tanks+2SW+4PH, 20klbs fuel, then expanded all missiles and burned fuel down to 4000lns > weight 47klbs Level flight maintained at 95% N2, 6900PPH and 145kts (Note, approach speed for that weight should be 128kts) 4th flight: Airstart with tanks and rails only and 4000lbs fuel > weight 47klbs 91% N2, 4900PPH and 128kts (spot on NATOPS) 5th flight Airstart with Tanks+2SW+4PH, 20klbs fuel, then expanded all missiles and burned fuel down to 4000lns > weight 47klbs Same as 4th flight. It appears that whenever you start from the carrier, weight and/or drag are too high, even from the very start, as can be seen by the difference in required engine power between the 1st and 2nd flight. With that in mind, I definetly agree with the OP that the FM has issues, I just don't believe they are wind related but rather a problem with ground start weight/drag calculation

Well it has, I was a little overpowered when the screenshot was taken, so it should have been more like 96% N2. Thats not much power left but still enough IMO. In the F-14A however, things will look different. I have to disagree on this one. In standard conditions, power requirements are significantly lower (about 2-3% less N2), giving you a comfortable power reserve in the turn. A few percent more N2 and a little less bank will arrest the sinkrate to zero. All in all, the current FM may be a little underpowered in low density conditions, but its not "sinking like a brick" and there is no need for MIL power. In the above conditions however, there is little room for errors in power/AoA management. Interesting, I haven't tested that scenario. FWIW, flying in MP and taking off with 70klbs, I have no problems getting back to the boat. I will do a test in more controlled conditions though. WING/EXT TRANS switch in OFF?

Just tested under the following conditions: 54000lbs Tanks+2SW+3SP+2PH 40°C, 28.10 inHg This is as bad as it gets considering landing weight, drag and ambient conditions. I tried with both zero wind and 25kts carrier speed and 10kts wind and 15kts carrier speed. No difference between the above. In both scenarios, I was able to maintain 15 AoA and a slight descend of about 200-300fpm, even at 30° AOB. Power settings where quite high but still not full MIL (See screenshot for engine params). Again, this was the worst case scenario. With lower temperature/higher pressure, power setting in the turn is nowhere near full MIL. I'm sorry but the problem is on your end not HB's.

Carrier speed and WoD have zero influence on your turning performance. I never have to use anything near full MIL in the pattern. Even at max trap weight with full fighter loadout, 5500-6000 PPH is enough to stay on AoA with a slight descend (200-300fpm). I don't want to step on anyone's toes but the problem may be more user (pilot) related. The Tomcat needs increadibly smooth power and pitch inputs in the pattern, otherwise you will find yourself overcorrecting the whole time. Low AoA situations are especially dangerous. A few degrees above optimum will require a significant thrust addition to get back on AoA, maybe even full MIL or AB. Thats interesting. I did get the impression that after finishing a sortie firing off all my missiles and being rather light (about 48k lbs), I needed more thrust in the pattern than I'm used to when flying clean from the start. Maybe it wasn't my imagination after all

Very interesting, I didn't know the Tomcat had that! So position calculations are not influenced by local magvar. Just one question: How is manual magvar initialized? Does jester enter it on startup or does it use some pre stored value?

Does it though? Assuming the Tomcat does have a magvar database, it would determine true north by adding/substracting the local magvar from the magneting heading recieved from the AHRS. If the AHRS magnetic heading is off for whatever reason, the true north computed by the INS would be off too, resulting in large position errors once the aircraft starts moving. Or is there some other method of determining true north I am not aware of (perhaps SINS?) I also wonder if INS heading should be linked to AHRS heading. Right now it seems that it is, since the carrier's magnetic field will throw off both VDI/HUD and BDHI heading once you get back to the boat. In any case, right now, you have to resync the compass after taking off from the carrier or you will have large heading errors, which seems rather unpractical and I wonder if this was the case IRL.

I would say channel 8 due to perspective. However, even when looking directly from above the knob in VR there still seems to be a little offset, but not as much as suggested in this picture.

Thats interesting, however I would like to see some results from actual flying and not active pause. I'm a little confused though. How did updating your INS through Tacan fix get your plane several miles away from your original (i.e. true) posiiton? I never payed much attention to INS accuracy but I will next time, because if this is true the INS needs some serious fixing

For some reason it's always off at startup, so you have to adjust it.

Thats interesting, because PPH is specifically mentioned as the engine parameter you want to control in Victory's landing guide. IMHO PPH is much more practical than N2 (N1 is not shown) since it is more sensitive to thrust changes than RPM. This in turn helps a lot in CV1, where I can barely make out the numbers on the tapes. Anyway, I guess different airframes different rules

Just tested with a fighter loadout (2SW+3SP+2PH+Tanks) at max trap weight (54k lbs) in hot conditions (40°C, 30.33mmHg). Took about 5500-6000 PPH to stay on AoA in the turn (25° AOB, slight descend at 200-300fpm) with plenty of thrust left. Approach speed was about 140Kts, which is about right for that weight. Your installation might be borked, try DCS repair and see if that helps.

The F-14 enters an ungodly roll under some circumstances after being hit. It appears that roll damping completely vanishes after the plane takes heavy damage, creating roll rates in excess of 1000°/s. This just should'nt be possible, even with a wing ripped off.

AFAIK thats a general DCS problem. You can drop the tanks before landing instead of completely dearming

This panel is usually in the RIO pit and only in the F-14A. Its used to the test a valve within the engine compressor duct (don't recall exactly between which stages though) that ejects part of the compressed air into the fan duct, thereby increasing stall margin at the cost of compressor effciency.

This sounds like you had fuel left in the wing tanks but not in the feed tanks. Did you accidentially place the WING/EXT TRANS switch to OFF?

That was fixed in last OB patch,at least for me.

It should be since the nose strut extends at the end of the cat shot, giving you some pitching moment. However, it does seem excessive. I've also seen videos of F-14s taking off with full aft stick (e.g. Topgun intro). Maybe that has something to do with CG (nose heavy AC > use more aft stick). Also, I'm still not sure how DCS adjusts catapult endspeed for different weights. Maybe the catshot in DCS gives you way more endspeed than in RL, substantially increasing pitch rates at a given stick deflection.

The Mi-17 is nothing more than the export variant of the MT. Thats basically an MTV2 with less powerful engines.

Did anything get fixed? No mention of F-14 changes in the changelog...