Understaning A and B Model?

Can someone in a nutshell sum up why I might want the A if I own the B?

because youre interested in tf-30 behavior and operation

Do you like a difficult challenge? Fly the B

Do you enjoy randomly getting stabbed? Fly the A

If you own the F-14B, you get the F-14A when it's ready anyhow, so there isn't something else to buy. The full package is the F-14A, B, AI A-6E and USS Forrestal.

As to why you'd want to use the A when you have the B available - if you're a stickler for historical accuracy and want to do missions prior to 1989, or any mission where the F-14A was involved, then you'd use the F-14A. Also, as REDFOR for the IRIAF, you'd use the F-14A, though the version HB is releasing will be more modern than the variants the IRIAF has, it will still be closer than an F-14B. That's about it; from a performance standpoint, you'd pick the F-14B any day of the week.

Except our A is a Post 1989 upgrade. So even Historical Accuracy is meh.. But you do get to be punished with the TF-30. So that's a "win?"

Honestly the best argument for the A is Iranian Airforce. Other than that why wouldn't you use the B?

Would it be easy to determine which one your in by sitting the cockpit?

Also those sweet, sweet hi-vis liveries and afterburner takeoffs.

Would it be easy to determine which one your in by sitting the cockpit?

Stall warning, for instance lol...

So the A has a lot of modern features missing, and some development problems.

Two big ones being:

The TF30 engines were a horrible mismatch for the platform. They were not intended to be used in the way the F-14 could push them and their signature issue was that they would compressor stall at high AOA... like when you are maybe a bit above on-speed AOA for a carrier landing. Not ideal.

The RWR was also a big difference. The A model's radar warning system was particularly lacking, and there are stories of how the crews would put consumer grade police radar detectors in the cockpit on the left and right side to detect incoming missiles.

and there are stories of how the crews would put consumer grade police radar detectors in the cockpit on the left and right side to detect incoming missiles.

Interesting, never heard such a story. Sounds very interesting, could you point me to one such story?

Thanks all! It all seemed a bit foggy to me, your comments give me a better sense of it.

Love HeatBlur.

Thanks all! It all seemed a bit foggy to me, your comments give me a better sense of it.

 

Love HeatBlur.

If it's just about what's the better aircraft then there is no reason to fly the A if you have the B. But then there would be no reason to fly anything else besides the F-16 and F/A-18. Why would I fly a F-86 Sabre or WW2 warbirds? Because I like to experience the different aircraft, their characteristics, their quirks and the technology built into them.

Edit: And of course, because I want to play historic scenarios where certain aircraft types and models were used.

Interesting, never heard such a story. Sounds very interesting, could you point me to one such story?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2410795&postcount=5

https://apnews.com/ff8979c9f5b1b9eb0561a97a6a0af387

I mean...I have heard a few months ago HB being very interested in adding Iranian only weapons to the F-14A as an option....stuff like the Hawk III MiM-23 missile, the Hawk Missile with a 750Ib bomb on the end as an indirect A2G thing and possible R-27?

(The first 2 being the most likely as they actually were used)

but of course things change and they might not want to persue that area anymore...but thats what Cobra said a while ago, that they found it an interesting prospect and "possible" in the future.

Also, -A's were mostly what operated off the Forrestal class carriers. The engine operation is rather different (burner cat launches and waveoff's). Then you also get the proper IRIAF Tomcat without the TCS and external tanks.

I think what we're getting is an F-14A that is a contemporary of the F-14B we already have. While HB's F-14A will be more capable than the F-14A from the late 1970s or mid 1980s, it hasn't lost any of the air-to-air functionality from that period, so aside some minor aesthetic details (gun gas vents, TACAN antennae, ECM blisters, and TCS pod) it'll fit right in to period scenarios. Many squadrons, (including the most historically significant VF-41), only ever flew the A model and retired in it. Heck, in the mid-1990s, most squadrons were only using the A.

Make no mistake, the F-14B was the superior airplane, but only 9 out of 30 fleet VF squadrons ever flew it, and not all at once. It wasn't as rare as the D model, but it was only equipping at most 6 squadrons at a time out of 30. At most the F-14D ever equipped 3 squadrons at a time, and for a very brief period in 1997 just 2. Until the mid-90s budget cuts were completed, the F-14A was the most common model, and was the only F-14 at all until 1989.

I mean...I have heard a few months ago HB being very interested in adding Iranian only weapons to the F-14A as an option....stuff like the Hawk III MiM-23 missile, the Hawk Missile with a 750Ib bomb on the end as an indirect A2G thing and possible R-27?

 

(The first 2 being the most likely as they actually were used)

 

but of course things change and they might not want to persue that area anymore...but thats what Cobra said a while ago, that they found it an interesting prospect and "possible" in the future.

I doubt Heatblur has documentation on how thise weapons are interfaced by the pilots (switches, buttons, displays and the functions behind).

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2410795&postcount=5

 

https://apnews.com/ff8979c9f5b1b9eb0561a97a6a0af387

Thanks a lot, that's an interesting read indeed! :thumbup:

Is the Iranian -A that will be released going to be a Block 90 Cat or will it be More modern with an IRAF skin?

Is the Iranian -A that will be released going to be a Block 90 Cat or will it be More modern with an IRAF skin?

It was discussed in a different location, but it will basically be the same USN F-14 in IRIAF liveries and apparently loadout limitations.

Why? Because i love the smell of na.... TF-30's in the morning, that's why! :thumbup:

their signature issue was that they would compressor stall at high AOA... like when you are maybe a bit above on-speed AOA for a carrier landing. Not ideal.

 

And during rapid throttle transitions. And afterburner blowouts without proper engine management. Fun times for all!

Piece of advice, if you intend to turn with it, push the throttles all the way forward and leave them there.

Quickie overview-

The TF30's reputation for compressor stalls are overblown. I had one stall and I induced it. I had one engine failure, but it wasn't catastrophic. Very simple to handle. Conversely, the B had some AB burn throughs that killed people, including a RIO I flew with for two cruises.

There were some changes to the engine in terms of bleed air relief during certain flight regimes to mitigate compressor stalls. This did reduce thrust slightly, but it also solved the compressor stall issues early jets had.

Basically, have the throttles at mil or max ab, don't move them while at high AOA (heavy buffet) and go enjoy the hop.

Get it out of your head that the motors are going to be stalling every ten seconds during ACM.

Can someone in a nutshell sum up why I might want the A if I own the B?

The A is the TOP GUN version, it is the legendary challenge and "men best friend" (or so they want to say).

You might want to have challenge to fly the "real tomcat" before it got all fancy upgrades and features that made it a safer and easier to fly.... (not so much really).

It is same thing as with anything, "Why I want older than X?" as challenge, experience to find out what it was before...

It is fun for moment to fly the latest and greatest, but it is even more fun to be challenged by the use of old technology that is obsolete in modern time comparison.

Quickie overview-

 

The TF30's reputation for compressor stalls are overblown. I had one stall and I induced it. I had one engine failure, but it wasn't catastrophic. Very simple to handle. Conversely, the B had some AB burn throughs that killed people, including a RIO I flew with for two cruises.

 

There were some changes to the engine in terms of bleed air relief during certain flight regimes to mitigate compressor stalls. This did reduce thrust slightly, but it also solved the compressor stall issues early jets had.

 

Basically, have the throttles at mil or max ab, don't move them while at high AOA (heavy buffet) and go enjoy the hop.

 

Get it out of your head that the motors are going to be stalling every ten seconds during ACM.

Amen to that! :pilotfly:

The TF30's reputation for compressor stalls are overblown. I had one stall and I induced it. I had one engine failure, but it wasn't catastrophic. Very simple to handle. Conversely, the B had some AB burn throughs that killed people, including a RIO I flew with for two cruises.

You can say that, but it is not the overall truth.

Navy or the engineers didn't care that what one pilot, or one wing experienced. They did care that what all fleets did experience.

And there is big difference in military that if 15-20% of men suffer lower performance that can be fixed so that only 5% suffer anymore, than leave it there.

So you might not have had problems with it. But someone else had even more than you know. And that can balance many things out. A reason to improve something.

Military and engineers very well know that you can easily get 90% of the men succeed in what is defined to be operational standard, but to get that extra 10% can be completely out of the question as it is too expensive and way too challenging - impossible even.

The F-14A had enough engine troubles to warrant a new engine design that fills to their demands. You have likely seen these/know more about it, but at least for others:

I put this out in simple, but honorable intensions:

You were just a pilot. You were not the fleet, you were not the all personnel operating F-14A.

What you have experienced personally, is interesting and valuable information, but it is as well only a very tiny of the information that what really happens.

It is with all people, everywhere, through the history. Someone experiences something, tells about it to others, and others can start to think they saw it as well or didn't see etc etc. You can't really even trust to people as group for evidence as you need to go through each case individually and really get it right. And it is still just the one case.

So you can have your experience, but someone can have completely different kind experiences.

This is not "You are wrong, listen that..:" as I believe you what you say about your experiences.

But I just point out, that the engineers knew TF-30 engines were not good for F-14. They were dangerous, they were just not suitable for fighter.

You are alive, you are having good memories that the engine wasn't so bad etc. But some others experiences can have been completely worse.

In these things it comes to small things that can make a huge difference. Like not having limitations how to use throttle compared to mentally acknowledge that how to handle throttle is big one. And we tend to easily forget that what it was previously, as we didn't know better.

Like just week ago I got to drive an old 4x4 military vehicle that had no power steering. It was just awful to drive off-road because you really needed to turn, and turn that wheel, and you needed to overcome the obstacles forces on wheel. Heavy experience, and I would never take myself today a car that has no power steering.

But that experience reminded again about the old days, when the fancy things didn't exist.

It was such a joyful experience to sit back to own vehicle and so easily just get it turning and drive. Because the power steering, so much more can be done by all the people in the world who are using such technical marvel. So while there are people who say "It wasn't so bad at all", they didn't likely have the experiences others did.

But as you said, "it is overblown", is it so? Yes, not like everyone experienced and suffered from it. But was it "It didn't happen at all so often or badly" is it so? Enough to warrant a new engines anyways, if not at all, then far more happier pilots to get their mind away from throttle control and focus more to the threat...