How To Fight To Win In The F-14

[addde]

I didn't mean using the manual override, but the emergency wing sweep handle (the one besides the throttles), not the one on the HOTAS. And not actually undersweeping it, but setting to say 22 degrees and living it there with the case open. I know, a can of worms if it can be done.

 

Im pretty sure its still gona keep sweeping back regardless of what you set the handle to.

[bC3660]

Good read thanks!

[captain_dalan]

Im pretty sure its still gona keep sweeping back regardless of what you set the handle to.

 

Wouldn't that defy its raison d’être? I mean, what's the point of having an emergency wing sweep control, if the mach computer still does its own thing?

 

But anyways, like they thought us back in the academy (no, not THAT academy), whenever in doubt, always consult the manual (check attachments bellow)

 

 

Good read thanks!

 

You are welcome mate! :thumbup:

Edited March 30, 2017 by captain_dalan

[Dino Might]

Are there data available on wing stress / failure in incorrect sweep config using the emergency override (e.g., undersweep for high speed, high g)? I wonder how failures will be modeled and if there is a lot of info on how this would play out.

 

I will, of course, have to try it in the game to see what happens, but I'd like to know if something similar would or has happened in realistic testing.

 

https://xkcd.com/242/

[captain_dalan]

Are there data available on wing stress / failure in incorrect sweep config using the emergency override (e.g., undersweep for high speed, high g)? I wonder how failures will be modeled and if there is a lot of info on how this would play out.

 

 

There may be, but i haven't came across any. Lunaticfringe may know more on the subject, or some of the guys around here that flew her. What i do know is why the option isn't available in manual override. Moving the wings front when at high speed (i'd guess 0.85+ mach, or heavens forbid transonic) would generate a sudden increase in lift that could cause over stress (not specified which systems, but i'd suspect the wing sweep mechanism and a pronounced wing flex) and maybe even loss of control (again i'd guess a strong pitch up tendency because of the shift of the center of lift combined with the increase of lift).

 

I will, of course, have to try it in the game to see what happens, but I'd like to know if something similar would or has happened in realistic testing.

 

https://xkcd.com/242/

 

LOL! You and me both mate! :megalol:

Edited March 30, 2017 by captain_dalan

[probad]

reference for the lazy

[lunaticfringe]

There may be, but i haven't came across any. Lunaticfringe may know more on the subject, or some of the guys around here that flew her. What i do know is why the option isn't available in manual override. Moving the wings front when at high speed (i'd guess 0.85+ mach, or heavens forbid transonic) would generate a sudden increase in lift that could cause over stress (not specified which systems, but i'd suspect the wing sweep mechanism and a pronounced wing flex) and maybe even loss of control (again i'd guess a strong pitch up tendency because of the shift of the center of lift combined with the increase of lift).

 

Emergency sweep invokes a proscribed limitation of 4.0G.

 

The interesting aspect regarding this is two things:

 

1. Wing sweep functions at full speed in all regimes at 4G, slowing down at higher loads, and

2. there is no transsonic G prohibition whatsoever in any version of the manual I can find- and nothing in the NAVAIR directives and updates, either

 

So what this infers to me is that the limit is set to keep the sweep actuation working correctly without the influence of the CADC to reduce it's functional speed, rather than an actual airframe restriction.

 

The other inference is the old standby- the Tomcat is operationally leaving plenty of performance on the table if 6.5G is safe at lower altitudes when the compressibility comes on.

 

There's a point where having the wings fully unswept is't going to be so much a danger as it is a hindrance from an energy standpoint. But to figure out where the danger lay, and how much there really is, one would have to calculate actual load at the increased compression density on the exposed wing area- compensating for the pancake, in the transsonic regime at 6.5, then work backwards from that value with the wings fully exposed.

[Dino Might]

Emergency sweep invokes a proscribed limitation of 4.0G.

 

The interesting aspect regarding this is two things:

 

1. Wing sweep functions at full speed in all regimes at 4G, slowing down at higher loads, and

2. there is no transsonic G prohibition whatsoever in any version of the manual I can find- and nothing in the NAVAIR directives and updates, either

 

So what this infers to me is that the limit is set to keep the sweep actuation working correctly without the influence of the CADC to reduce it's functional speed, rather than an actual airframe restriction.

 

The other inference is the old standby- the Tomcat is operationally leaving plenty of performance on the table if 6.5G is safe at lower altitudes when the compressibility comes on.

 

There's a point where having the wings fully unswept is't going to be so much a danger as it is a hindrance from an energy standpoint. But to figure out where the danger lay, and how much there really is, one would have to calculate actual load at the increased compression density on the exposed wing area- compensating for the pancake, in the transsonic regime at 6.5, then work backwards from that value with the wings fully exposed.

 

Hopefully one day I will get an aerospace MS so I can make full sense of this. :thumbup:

[turkeydriver]

Oh yes, its plenty strong!! Just meant that the radius and rate at 6.5g is sustained and better for fighting than putting more than that on the jet and bleeding energy. You can put your Hoser Satrapa 12g pull on the jet but you're just going to stop it and be a huge target out of energy. At that point anything can hit you.

 

I'd like to edit and say 6.5g and/or a 330kts corner is gonna be best for the F-14A depending on weight and altitude, the B could possible sustain more g at corner depending on the fidelity level of simulation and where the game tells us it breaks.

[captain_dalan]

Hopefully one day I will get an aerospace MS so I can make full sense of this. :thumbup:

 

And when you, do be kind and come back here to share it with us! I must compliment these forums, i have learned more about aviation in general, aerodynamics, kinetics and electronic warfare just by lurking here for years, then i ever had in school :thumbup:

 

I'd like to edit and say 6.5g and/or a 330kts corner is gonna be best for the F-14A depending on weight and altitude, the B could possible sustain more g at corner depending on the fidelity level of simulation and where the game tells us it breaks.

 

I would add, depending on the specific situation. It will give you your best corner yes, but those power curves are not to my liking in that region. Something tells me, 80% of the time, i'll most likely try and hold her above 350. Probably between 360-450 to be exact. In the B? No restrictions. That thing is a beast! :pilotfly:

[frixon28]

Step 1 - Gel your hair and tip it white

Step 2 - Become a gym rat and play volleyball shirtless doused in baby oil

Step 3 - Say epic quotes

Step 4 - Break all the aviation laws that are possible

Step 5 - Say more epic quotes

Step 6 - Shoot down the aggresor aircraft your are training with

Step 7 - Profit

Step 8 (Optional) - Rinse and Repeat if necessary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

April 1st

[Barefoot Bandit]

Excellent - was looking for something to do on my flight...

 

Z...