How is f-14 maneuverability?

[captain_dalan]

The F-5, no. An A-4E/F/M?

 

Yeah, you've got a big part of that envelope you do *not* want to play with him on his terms. Snort'll tell you, now that he's flying A-4Ks with Draken International: give that airframe AIM-9X, and he'd kill Raptors all day long.

 

Heinemann's hot rod is no joke with a good motor and functional slats.

 

As for what to watch?

 

Class is in session.

 

 

Oh i agree completely. I.E. going one circle from a neutral merge, or extremely slow against one is extremely suicidal. And i understand why they were utilized as adversaries (besides being good MiG-17 simulators), they were there to teach you that even a less performing plane can kill you if you don't take it seriously. It's just that in the movies they slip it in like it's the other way around :(

 

BTW, very very good video, i loved it :thumbup:

[Allesmor Obranna]

Check ALL of these videos:

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/BurnerAirDisplay/videos

 

Power, noise and beauty.

[dekiplav]

I have a question about F-14's DFCS (Digital Flight Control System).

Did the integration on the DFCS increase maneuverability or prevented some maneuvers to be executed in account of safety. On the net it says it make the Cat more agile. What are you're thoughts on this subject?

Edited March 8, 2015 by dekiplav

[captain_dalan]

I have a question about F-14's DFCS (Digital Flight Control System).

Did the integration on the DFCS increase maneuverability or prevented some maneuvers to be executed in account of safety. On the net it says it make the Cat more agile. What are you're thoughts on this subject?

It made the plane somewhat safer to fly (especially during landing and in high alpha), but as it usually goes with these things, it restricted somewhat what you could do with it.

[turkeydriver]

I have a question about F-14's DFCS (Digital Flight Control System).

Did the integration on the DFCS increase maneuverability or prevented some maneuvers to be executed in account of safety. On the net it says it make the Cat more agile. What are you're thoughts on this subject?

 

From what I've read there where restrictions you could get around, and from what I've heard these were slow speed, high alpha restrictions, as well as the famous rolling restrictions.

 

the test F-14DTomcat for DFCS was testing max roll( the F-14 has no ailerons, so it doesn't roll as fast as an F-16), the DFCS allowed for such response that the F-14 easily exceeded 4g rolling(-y-axis g, not the normal +/- of the X axis) and damaged the engine bay daily doors. Thus the restrictions were put into place.

 

The DFCS may have been an overall ACM hamper for the B/D, but when an A squadron (VF-41?, VF-211?) took their jets to Germany on an ACM det in with the MiG-29s, the Luftwaffe pilots remarked they had never seen Tomcat's fight so well and they scored admirably.....

[FWind]

The DFCS may have been an overall ACM hamper for the B/D, but when an A squadron (VF-41?, VF-211?) took their jets to Germany on an ACM det in with the MiG-29s, the Luftwaffe pilots remarked they had never seen Tomcat's fight so well and they scored admirably.....

 

The DFCS made B/D maneuverabilitiy no better than AFCS？？？

[MoGas]

The DFCS made B/D maneuverabilitiy no better than AFCS？？？

 

You could fly closer to limits of the jet, especially for the younger pilots. A old fashion "A" pro pilot would not benefit from it.

[sissypilot]

Well the Phoenix did not have a fabulous combat record as far as I remember two were fired in real combat and both missed. So the effectiveness of this missile is a little over exaggerated. The tomcat topgun myth is also something needs to be put into context. I found only two downed poor old su-22 (by american pilots), which is not a great result as this plane was an interceptor its sole role was to down enemy planes, and it had the luck of serving in each and every cold war and post cold war conflicts up to 2004.

 

Though this plane certainly looks very sexy I thing its marketing is better than its results.

Edited March 12, 2015 by sissypilot

[captain_dalan]

Well the Phoenix did not have a fabulous combat record as far as I remember two were fired in real combat and both missed. So the effectiveness of this missile is a little over exaggerated. The tomcat topgun myth is also something needs to be put into context. I found only two downed poor old su-22 (by american pilots), which is not a great result as this plane was an interceptor its sole role was to down enemy planes, and it had the luck of serving in each and every cold war and post cold war conflicts up to 2004.

 

Though this plane certainly looks very sexy I thing its marketing is better than its results.

 

Um.... ok :noexpression:

 

Did by chance you glanced through the rest of the thread?

[sissypilot]

Dreams are important part of life, so I wish you many Flogger kills with Turkey.:thumbup:

 

 

 

Well yes my words were bit exaggerated, but ( forgive me ) Tomcat myth always make me laugh, especially trashy " Top Gun" movie.

Where is the point?. I have real doubts that Leatherneck ( or any other developer ) is able to deliver so complicated sim. It's not Tomcat issue, but all really complex aircrafts. Eagle Dynamics claims that DCS it's high level simulation not game, but so far most developers have serious issues with simplest things: flight models, fan from Mi-8, gunsight in MiG-21, lots of trivial issues in F-86, P-51, bug treads are full. When you read topics people just saying stories, I heard here.. I heard there... almost no substantive discussion. Meanwhile DCS became cheap market where developers announcing new super cool " awesome" modules, without finishing old ones. Almost nobody does not demand improvements, most wants game, next Arma or Falcon 4. I want simulation, graphs, numbers because I paid for it.

I don't care which aircraft will be better Tomcat, Flogger, Mirage, Fulcrum.... it does not matter. They are to be a copy of reality with all consequences and issues, NOT someone's imagination. Everyone were delighted Leatherneck's new modul, nobody asked about documentation for all important systems. Navair it's only slight part of needed documentation. Most of this papers are still secret, so we will have imagination instead facts and reality. Regards.

 

You have it buddy. All my doubts were vanished if only one 100% accurate module was developed by LN at all, what we have is a sexy module full of bugs which gets further from perfect with each update. I have a feeling that purchasing a new beta module would just double my time hanging on the bugs and problems thread...

The tomcat probably is a better choice as you say, because with a module like this you can sell anything you want to the masses -hereyougothisisatomcatsim 55dollars, thankyou, ifyouhaveaproblemwehavearealtomcatpilotshutup, thankyou- nobody will be able to check on it at an appropriate level.

Edited March 12, 2015 by sissypilot

[foxbat155]

Well sadly I think most people will be happy with FC3 level, clickable cockpit and some systems which looks similar to reality. If this will be DCS development road in future, we can expect much more "awesome" modules. I have few ideas: DCS USS Starship Enterprise, DCS Death Star or maybe something from Klingons.....:music_whistling:

[Manuel_108]

DCS: Death Star would be an instant buy for me

[Dudikoff]

Well sadly I think most people will be happy with FC3 level, clickable cockpit and some systems which looks similar to reality. If this will be DCS development road in future, we can expect much more "awesome" modules.

 

And you're basing such generic statements on what facts exactly? BTW, "some systems which look similar to reality" is a definition of a simulation; there's always a level of abstraction present, I don't know what you expect here really.

 

Besides, the F-14 module isn't even close to being out yet so there's not much point to such speculative posts other than being provocative.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Dudikoff

[captain_dalan]

And you're basing such generic statements on what facts exactly? BTW, "some systems which look similar to reality" is a definition of a simulation; there's always a level of abstraction present, I don't know what you expect here really.

 

Besides, the F-14 module isn't even close to being out yet so there's not much point to such speculative posts other than being provocative.

 

"Being provocative" i believe is the key word here :smilewink:

[Hummingbird]

Maneuverability wise the F-14 should be very good at subsonic speeds, esp. in the horizontal.

 

The lifting body design, LE devices and swing wing capability made the F-14 an exceptional dogfighter at subsonic speeds at low altitude, and infact it set the record for the quickest minimum radius turn at Abbotsford in 1986 (19.8 sec).

 

The only area in terms of agility where the F-14 wasn't so great was in roll rate, which could become a problem in a very close scissors fight. But in a turning fight the F-14 would beat most other fighters, incl. the F-15.

[captain_dalan]

I just checked back a few pages, does anyone know what happened to the graphs i attached? Can a moderator help? If they are in some way "improper" maybe i should modify them or made them from scratch?

 

EDIT: Sorry, false alarm. They are back. Must be a faulty browser on my part. Carry on :)

[MoGas]

Well the Phoenix did not have a fabulous combat record as far as I remember two were fired in real combat and both missed. So the effectiveness of this missile is a little over exaggerated. The tomcat topgun myth is also something needs to be put into context. I found only two downed poor old su-22 (by american pilots), which is not a great result as this plane was an interceptor its sole role was to down enemy planes, and it had the luck of serving in each and every cold war and post cold war conflicts up to 2004.

 

Though this plane certainly looks very sexy I thing its marketing is better than its results.

 

"only two were fired in real combat and both missed"such statement makes it clear, that you have no idea about the F-14 and AIM-54 records.

 

:doh:

[Manuel_108]

There was just one engage where both rocket motors failed, right? The other AIM-54 engages where successful as they tracked the targets down but the bandits took a hike before the Phoenix could hit em IIRC.

[MoGas]

There was just one engage where both rocket motors failed, right? The other AIM-54 engages where successful as they tracked the targets down but the bandits took a hike before the Phoenix could hit em IIRC.

 

In the Iran, Iraq War there are been 30+ confirmed a2a kills with the AIM-54A . The US Navy Tomcats never had such a2a war like the Iran to show off like that. Besides the four Gaddafi jets. They could have been destroyd with the AIM-54 too, but the ROE dosent allowed it (2x SU22, 2x Mig 23). Btw. there is no missile out there without issues.

[Manuel_108]

Sure there isn't, would be boring if everything works perfectly. Didn't know the Iranians where that successful with the Phoenix.

[captain_dalan]

I'm not sure about this, but there are claims that the Iranians actually depleted their reserves of AIM-54's during the war and that is why they tried to adapt surface to air missiles as replacement.

[turkeydriver]

I'm not sure about this, but there are claims that the Iranians actually depleted their reserves of AIM-54's during the war and that is why they tried to adapt surface to air missiles as replacement.

 

Tom Cooper has a lot of accuracy but of course like most forces- there is exaggeration. The truth lies somewhere in between. We think we were able to permanently sabotage every AIM-54 and all the F-14s but that just isn't the case. Tom Cooper's book has too many stories that can't be made up. The problem lies in MiM-23 batteries claiming AIM-54 kills, and the differing accounts of Iran and Iraq's war records. Iran claims that the French tested a few Mirage 2000 in Iraq. Iraq and France deny this AFAIK. The F-14A tech is old now, and solid state manufacturing would allow bypassing certain parts that were difficult to procure in the past.

[turkeydriver]

Regarding the AIM-54........

 

Study the particulars on the "misses" genius. In the instance where the missile guided against the MiG-25 ( which was flying a power curve of sorts-designed to instigate a reaction by penetrating the Southern NFZ at high speed then turn and dive- instantly defeating every BVR missile shot) there were also F-15s in the Area that missed with AIM-7s and AIM-120s. The flight was a mixed flight of an F-14D and F-18C, the F-18 was left in the dust and had no chance to get into a missile launch zone. The other circumstance would have been an easy kill where the weapons were launched at a target in the "heart of the envelope." However, a new ordnanceman had checked onboard and incorrectly installed the AIM-54s, when they were fired, they dropped and their rocket motor safety pins were sheared intact instead of separating correctly. This had no fault on the missile's part.

 

What one must consider in all fact, is that the AIM-120s success is in a very large part due to the platforms that launch it. Sure it has limits and flaws and faults, but its lack of use due to high cost- and strategic preservation for only anti bomber shots during the 70s and 80s, led to a lack of loading proficiency and reliability of the weapon. Used and loaded as common as an AIM-7 or AIM-9, I have no doubt promising a very high PK.

Edited March 14, 2015 by turkeydriver

[GGTharos]

In all fact, parts of the ACTUAL tactical manuals I've had the opportunity to see for that bygone era, produced by the Russians for the Russians, had very similar tactics against eagles and tomcats.

[turkeydriver]

In all fact, parts of the ACTUAL tactical manuals I've had the opportunity to see for that bygone era, produced by the Russians for the Russians, had very similar tactics against eagles and tomcats.

 

Thanks, I've only read very little Eastern stuff and a lot of Western. Edited my post. Do the tactics describe how to get within range-like the MiG-23 tactics of low altitude+beam and when in range, zoom in, shoot, and run?

 

Or do the tactics give any detail on defeating BVR shots while trying to get within range to employ your weapons?