sLYFa

Probably yes but not neccessarily. It depends on the indivdual aircraft. For the F-14, there appears to be some difference. I remember the Tu-154 also had two climb schedules, one for economy and one for fastest climb. In GA aircraft, the tables often boil down to a single value. There is also a max climb angle speed, but its probably not that relevant for fighters.

There is also a best roc schedule furhter down and an AB climb schedule in the mission planning section. Edit: Apparently, the best roc section is only present in the -B manual. But from an aerodynamic point of view, there is always best roc climb and best fuel economy climb, no matter if its a cessna or a B747.

I don't know about the F-15 specifically, but generally, there are always two climb schedules: Best rate of climb and best fuel economy. Military airplanes often have a third climb schedule for AB best rate of climb. That M 0.7 you quoted is the best fuel economy rate of climb for the Tomcat, while the values for the F-4/Tornado are likely for AB climb. There is also an AB max rate of climb schedule for the F-14 which also prescribes M 0.9. No surprise at all. Unlike most other fighters, the Tomcat has a high aspect ratio and can climb more efficiently than other fighters. Hence its fuel conservation climb speed is about that of commercial airliners (A320 climbs at around M 0.7/0.8 once it gets high enough).

I recommend no curves at all with the Warthog throttle, as it provides enough travel for fine adjustments at any power setting. You may want to create a custom curve with the script editor to match the physical AB detent with the one ingame.

The refuel probe switch must be in EXT/ALL to refuel wing and external tanks.

I can assure you that it IS very well possible to air refuel the F-14 over a broad range of alitutde airspeed. No more difficult than the A-10 or F-15 (a little easier IMHO due to the probe/drogue system). I have no problems whatsoever to smoothly plug in the the probe into the basket and keep it there for as long as I need. This did take some training, but nowhere near 20h. AAR takes a lot of patience and smooth, tiny control inputs. What you are describing is the result of abrupt stick input, resulting in a self induced oscilation. I understand your frustration but calling the F-14 'impossible to refuel' is simply not true.

good question, wondered that myself.Maybe not implemented yet?

Landing in crosswind is a whole diffetent story than taxiing in crosswind. The OP was about taxiing. Saying that 'there were ejections all day long' is outright BS. I did my PPL in a PA-18, a tail dragger with no tailwheel lock, and it was a pain to taxi, even without wind. But it was still quite manageable even for a rookie pilot. Long story short, if you are driving a 60k lbs fighter across the ramp, any wind that is within TO limits shouldn't be any problem, much less in DCS.

Wow, navy AC must be made of paper then, since I never had problems taxiing in GA aircraft even with 20kn crosswind. You might wanna check your sources on that whole 'windy taxi school in Miramar'. Maybe starting with the fact that Miramar is not used by the USN

Tune DSBL Not sure what its for though. Probably to disable missile tuning

Since the 2.5.5. update, AIs keep floating on the carrier deck in moderate/heavy pitching conditions. They used to get glued to the deck once parked, now they keep floating. Also, the F-14 doesn't sweep its wings back, causing collisions. CV_floating_AI.trk

yep, depending on which slot you choose though. Sometimes jester does an ASH alignment but attitude reference is off by a few degrees and gets progressively worse during flight.

I can't recall the performance of the cat before the engine nerv, but compared to the last update, there is definitely an improvement. Prior to the update, I really struggled to keep up with the F-16 AI in the vertical. Now I can easily follow him up and get enough lead for a gunshot. The performance in landing configuration probably also changed, as I do not need to add that much thrust in the groove turn as I did before the patch. But this may also be my imagination.

The AI also does not sweep their wings back after recovering, leading to collisions with nearby planes

ICLS workes fine, at least on my part. There is no ACL/VEC steering btw. Either AWL/PCD or VEC. Are you sure you are using AWL/PCD steering?

Do you mean SEAM? Never heard of SCAN.

The deviation bar arrow (i.e. the TO/FROM indicator) does not tell wether you are flying a towards or away from the station. It tells whether you are in the TO or FROM sector of the radial you dialed in, same as in a Cessna.

I am a little confused, according to this https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=700&ct=2 there were 3 C variants: C, C+ and ECCM. The original deployed in 1985 required cooling. The later models did not (or is C+ just another designation for ECCM?). Perhaps all Cs were upgraded to C+ standards eventually? Anyway, it depends on what HB is modelling.

Thats the Aim-54ECCM. The C does require cooling.

deleted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range Its for VOR but TACAN uses the same principle. Read the "Using a VOR" section and it will all make sense.

I undestand that and my response was to the question whether such a weathered cockpit would be tolerated in service and the answer is yes for the aforementioned reason. I've seen a Viper pit that looked even worse and that was an active USAF airframe.

They are not supposed to turn. They did in the AS F-14 for gameplay purposes but that was unrealistic. Perhaps its a good idea for HB to implement something like this but its not a bug.

The cockpit is prefectly fine IMHO. Some labels are weathered but most of them are clearly readable. Its the low resolution of the gen1 VR headsets thats the problem. But anyway, if you are a rated pilot you dont' need any labels anyway, because you should know every switch/light from memory. The tomcat is particularly good vor VR IMHO because it does not have any hard to read MFDs and HUD. The primary flight instruments are either steam gauges or ridiculously large (talking about VDI). For these, you only need to make out the position of the needle on the respective gauge, which you can see perfectly even on the vsi in the CV1. The numbers themselfes shouldn't matter, as you know which tick is which value after flying a couple of times.

On for field TO as well. You want that antiskid working in case you need to abort your takeoff roll