some unrelated questions about the f-14

[twistking]

Hello,

i'm still trying to figure out, for what upcoming aircraft i should get excited about (f-18c, av-8b, f-14a/b), because getting excited abut all of them would be too much excitement, wouldn't it?

 

For me the f-14 is the most iconic military jet - not only of the three - but probably off all times, so i'm inclined to get all hyped up about it.

I've got a few questions though, i'm sure you guys, can answer from your general knowledge or by comparisson to similar aircrafts / aircraft simualtors.

 

- F-14 general flight characteristics

I love flying the a-10c in dcs, because the flight model feels very high fidelity and it still feeld like flying a real plane, as there is no computer-wizardry apart from the sas. I also enjoy the f-5e, for the same reasons, but i don't enjoy the high wing loads, which give you less a sense of flying a plane, but more that of being strapped to a rocket (extreme speed bleeding in turns, super high aoa for take-off and landing).

However i absoulutely do not enjoy flying the f-15 and i am not really sure, if it is about the fidelity of the flight model, or the fact, that the flight controls are computer assisted to a high degree. As the general aviation aspects are as interesting as the combat for me, this is the reason i rarely fly the f-15.

So how is the f-14 expected to perform in comparisson to the a-10c, f-5e and f-15 in terms of flight dynamics (wing load etc.), level of computer-assist in flight controls, and fidelity of flight model in DCS?

Will the f-14 hold its nose, where you put it or require trimming etc.?

 

- F-14B ground attack capabilities

i'm still a bit confused by this. do we get the "bombcat" or the "regular" b version, which, if i understand correctly, had the capabilities to do ground attack, but wouldn't be used in that role?

So, Heatblur F-14 B ground attack, yes or no?

 

- RIO seat and gameplay

i'm still unsure if the f-14 being a two seater - besides from being awesome - has negative implications on gameplay. to be honest, i don't know much about rio workload in real life.

What is considered the duty of a RIO aside from working the radar and how do these duties translate to DCS "gameplay"?

Would a F-14 theoretically be able to engage BVR targets without a RIO in the backseat?

Can aircraft control be swapped between pilot and RIO at any time (pilot/copilot)?

 

- about jester (probably only to be answered by the devs atm)

As i find "talking" to ai in dcs (atc, jtac) very unimmersive, i'm wondering how much input the jester ai would need during engagements.

Will the jester ai require constant input, or will it be proactive and let me react to his very intelligent proposals?!

 

thanks a lot:)

Edited May 14, 2017 by twistking

[Sryan]

Hello,

i'm still trying to figure out, for what upcoming aircraft i should get excited about (f-18c, av-8b, f-14a/b), because getting excited abut all of them would be too much excitement, wouldn't it?

 

Choice is an illusion :) If you're skipping out on any of the three jets, you're missing out on a lot.

 

For me the f-14 is the most iconic military jet - not only of the three - but probably off all times, so i'm inclined to get all hyped up about it.

I've got a few questions though, i'm sure you guys, can answer from your general knowledge or by comparisson to similar aircrafts / aircraft simualtors.

 

- F-14 general flight characteristics

I love flying the a-10c in dcs, because the flight model feels very high fidelity and it still feeld like flying a real plane, as there is no computer-wizardry apart from the sas. I also enjoy the f-5e, for the same reasons, but i don't enjoy the high wing loads, which give you less a sense of flying a plane, but more that of being strapped to a rocket (extreme speed bleeding in turns, super high aoa for take-off and landing).

However i absoulutely do not enjoy flying the f-15 and i am not really sure, if it is about the fidelity of the flight model, or the fact, that the flight controls are computer assisted to a high degree. As the general aviation aspects are as interesting as the combat for me, this is the reason i rarely fly the f-15.

So how is the f-15 expected to perform in comparisson to the a-10c, f-5e and f-15 in terms of flight dynamics (wing load etc.), level of computer-assist in flight controls, and fidelity of flight model in DCS?

The F-15 flight model is absolutely fantastic. While it does not have a fully blown FBW, flying the F-15 is indeed aided by a variety of systems. You can demonstrate these systems to yourself by putting yourself in an F-15 on the runway, standing still. Watch in F2 as you move the stick around. Note how the F-15 commands the rudders and moves the stabs independently of each other in order to provide the motion you seem to desire.

 

- F-14B ground attack capabilities

i'm still a bit confused by this. do we get the "bombcat" or the "regular" b version, which, if i understand correctly, had the capabilities to do ground attack, but wouldn't be used in that role?

So, Heatblur F-14 B groudn attack, yes or no?

All F-14's have the capability to do ground attack. They all have the capability to carry bombs, all are equiped with an SMS (Stores Managment System) and they also have code for the AN/AWG-9 to support ground attack. However throughout the cold war, the F-14's primary mission remained fleet defense, and they weren't cleared to carry bombs even if they could. The F-14B upgrade is the one that earned the bombcat monnicker. I believe it was on this platform the F-14 started receiving some nice systems for the air to ground mission like LANTIRN, LTS and T3 (I believe the latter only made its way to the F-14D). It has not been decided or atleast not published if we're getting just a regular F-14B or a PGM capable Tomcat.

 

- RIO seat and gameplay

i'm still unsure if the f-14 being a two seater - besides from being awesome - has negative implications on gameplay. to be honest, i don't know much about rio workload in real life.

What is considered the duty of a RIO aside from working the radar and how do these duties translate to DCS "gameplay"?

Would a F-14 theoretically be able to engage BVR targets without a RIO in the backseat?

Can aircraft control be swapped between pilot and RIO at any time (pilot/copilot)?

The TID (Tactical Information Display, the radar screen) and DDD (Detail Data Display) are only present in the RIO pit, atleast on older models, so for them it's not possible. More modern F-14's received MFD's but I don't know if the front pit is capable of displaying radar data.

[twistking]

Choice is an illusion :) If you're skipping out on any of the three jets, you're missing out on a lot.

... well, but i still have to decide, which to fly first;)

 

The F-15 flight model is absolutely fantastic. While it does not have a fully blown FBW, flying the F-15 is indeed aided by a variety of systems. [...] Note how the F-15 commands the rudders and moves the stabs independently of each other in order to provide the motion you seem to desire.

ok i see. then it is definitely not lack of fidelity of flight model simulation, but just me getting more joy from more "manual" flown aircrafts, like a-10c, f-5e, tf-51 (obviously).

But how will the f-14 compare to the f-15 in that regard. Since it is a bit less of a dogfighter and more of a long-range-missile-truck, is it realistic to hope, that there is a bit less assist-wizardry going on?

 

All F-14's have the capability to do ground attack. [...] It has not been decided or atleast not published if we're getting just a regular F-14B or a PGM capable Tomcat.

ok. thanks for the info!

 

The TID (Tactical Information Display, the radar screen) and DDD (Detail Data Display) are only present in the RIO pit, atleast on older models, so for them it's not possible. More modern F-14's received MFD's but I don't know if the front pit is capable of displaying radar data.

ok. interesting. Will make for interesting and engaging communication with a human RIO for sure!

So, i assume, the RIO has just more displays and functionailty at his disposable, while the pilot has a cleaner pit for better visibility? So the RIO could theoretically (!!!) fly the f-14 by himself and use all the systems, while the pilot would miss out on some displays and functionality assosciated with them?!

I'm asking, because with that, the f-14 could basically act as a trainer for itself;) (which could be very good for multiplayer, where you could either learn to fly the f-14 together with a friend, or be flying sorties having the more experienced pilot int he back seat and a less experienced pilot in the front seat, switching duties as you see fit)

 

thanks for all the answers! :)

[near_blind]

The F-14B upgrade is the one that earned the bombcat monnicker. I believe it was on this platform the F-14 started receiving some nice systems for the air to ground mission like LANTIRN, LTS and T3 (I believe the latter only made its way to the F-14D). It has not been decided or atleast not published if we're getting just a regular F-14B or a PGM capable Tomcat.

 

This is an excellent reply. Contrary to popular belief, the Bombcat is not any sort of official designation, it was a moniker thought up by the community once their role transitioned from Fleet Defense / Tactical Reconnaissance to include long range strike. Generally speaking, apart from the engines every upgrade the F-14B received (The Sparrowhawk Hud, the PTID, the Lantirn, etc.) Surviving F-14A squadrons also received. There was an F-14A Upgrade as well as an F-14B Upgrade.

 

Cobra has confirmed that we will be getting the F-14B as it was from 1987 through the very early 90s, with the most rudimentary of early A/G programming enabled. Heatblur has apparently not ruled out releasing an upgrade at a later date that will include LANTIRN, the HUD, etc. at a later date, but it is not considered viable for the initial release.

 

You'll still be able to release the Mk-80 series of bombs (Mk-82/83/84), Rockets, and Rockeyes. You can release LGBs, but like the Mirage an F-5 you'll need either a JTAC or another aircraft to buddy lase.

 

ok. interesting. Will make for interesting and engaging communication with a human RIO for sure!

So, i assume, the RIO has just more displays and functionailty at his disposable, while the pilot has a cleaner pit for better visibility? So the RIO could theoretically (!!!) fly the f-14 by himself and use all the systems, while the pilot would miss out on some displays and functionality assosciated with them?!

I'm asking, because with that, the f-14 could basically act as a trainer for itself (which could be very good for multiplayer, where you could either learn to fly the f-14 together with a friend, or be flying sorties having the more experienced pilot int he back seat and a less experienced pilot in the front seat, switching duties as you see fit)

 

Sadly this isn't really feasible. Unlike the USAF, the USN doesn't put flight controls in the backseat of their aircraft. There's no way for an F-14 RIO to fly the aircraft.

[addde]

Generally speaking, apart from the engines every upgrade the F-14B received (The Sparrowhawk Hud, the PTID, the Lantirn, etc.) Surviving F-14A squadrons also received. There was an F-14A Upgrade as well as an F-14B Upgrade.

 

The A never got the sparrowhawk hud AFAIK.

[probad]

last sim i flew the f-14 of it didnt have nose holding and frankly felt something like a clean a-10 with an uncapped speedometer.

 

think a lot of us are excited for the f-14 though because there are so many things we dont know about it.

[twistking]

Unlike the USAF, the USN doesn't put flight controls in the backseat of their aircraft.

 

Oh no. I think that would have helped with getting people excited to fly as RIO.

 

last sim i flew the f-14 [...] felt something like a clean a-10 with an uncapped speedometer.

 

that sounds like heaven!

[BlackLion213]

- F-14 general flight characteristics

I love flying the a-10c in dcs, because the flight model feels very high fidelity and it still feeld like flying a real plane, as there is no computer-wizardry apart from the sas. I also enjoy the f-5e, for the same reasons, but i don't enjoy the high wing loads, which give you less a sense of flying a plane, but more that of being strapped to a rocket (extreme speed bleeding in turns, super high aoa for take-off and landing).

 

The F-14 had very analog controls and its SAS system was much more basic than the F-15C's CAS system. The SAS system could only reduce the magnitude or rate of an input, but could not add inputs (like rudder inputs in place of ailerons at high AOA in the F-15). Flying the F-14 should feel quite analog and comparable to the F-5E in terms of assist. The CAS system in the A-10C and F-15C are more sophisticated than that of the Tomcat.

 

It also did not have a pitch trim compensator so expect to trim the aircraft with any significant change in airspeed or change in wing sweep (such as manual sweep changes).

 

Also, the Tomcat could be quite a handful at low speeds and in the approach configuration. The airframe had tons of lift and a tendency to float. Dutch roll was also quite prominent as were difficulties with precise lateral control. Pitch response in the F-14 was also a bit slower than other 4th gen fighters - the Tomcat's pitch rate was excellent, but the response was a bit slow and imprecise at times. This something that would be noticed during tasks aerial refueling or carrier approaches.

 

Later in life (late-90s) the Tomcat received the DFCS upgrade that greatly enhanced SAS functionality and brought the system close to the CAS in the F-15C. It solved a lot of the low speed handling issues and improved responsiveness throughout the flight envelope. The Heatblur F-14 will have the regular AFCS/SAS system, not DFCS.

 

- F-14B ground attack capabilities

i'm still a bit confused by this. do we get the "bombcat" or the "regular" b version, which, if i understand correctly, had the capabilities to do ground attack, but wouldn't be used in that role?

So, Heatblur F-14 B ground attack, yes or no?

 

This is an excellent reply. Contrary to popular belief, the Bombcat is not any sort of official designation, it was a moniker thought up by the community once their role transitioned from Fleet Defense / Tactical Reconnaissance to include long range strike. Generally speaking, apart from the engines every upgrade the F-14B received (The Sparrowhawk Hud, the PTID, the Lantirn, etc.) Surviving F-14A squadrons also received. There was an F-14A Upgrade as well as an F-14B Upgrade.

 

Well said. From what I can tell, the first F-14 deployment with A-G capability was 1991 aboard USS Nimitz with VF-211 and VF-24 flying F-14Bs (just redesignated from the original F-14A+ moniker). These F-14Bs were fitted with the BRU-32 bomb racks allowing them to carry iron bombs (Mk 82-84) and cluster bombs. However, this upgrade didn't mean much operationally with every airwing still deploying with the mighty A-6E. By 1992-93, every F-14 squadron would gain A-G capability, but only unguided bombs (no rockets or A-G missiles) delivered via CCIP.

 

(Heatblur's F-14B will be more or less like the VF-211/VF-24 deployment in 1991)

 

It wasn't till 1996 that the F-14B first deployed with LANTIRN (with the near simultaneous retirement of the A-6E) that it became a credible precision strike platform. By 1998, all F-14 squadrons (A/B/D) had acquired LANTIRN and the PTID to become what most consider the "Bombcat".

 

As near blind said, it was a progressive process and Tomcats were dropping bombs 5 years before LANTIRN, but wasn't until LANTIRN that the capability became relevant and essential for the airwing.

 

Also as near blind said, all versions of the F-14 essentially had the same capability and received similar upgrades. There were a few exceptions: the "F-14B Upgrade" was an official USN designation that included a new databus in addition to PTID and LANTIRN that only the F-14B received (F-14Ds were built with a better system and the F-14As never received it). The F-14A never carried JDAMs, but I otherwise haven't found a difference in capability.

 

Also, the F-14A never received the sparrowhawk HUD. This HUD was an attempt to bring F-14D levels of HUD functionality to the F-14B and was operational in the fleet around 2002 (though in development since ~1999). It was a very late upgrade for the F-14B and most equipped squadrons only went on 1-2 deployments with the new HUD.

 

- RIO seat and gameplay

i'm still unsure if the f-14 being a two seater - besides from being awesome - has negative implications on gameplay. to be honest, i don't know much about rio workload in real life.

What is considered the duty of a RIO aside from working the radar and how do these duties translate to DCS "gameplay"?

Would a F-14 theoretically be able to engage BVR targets without a RIO in the backseat?

Can aircraft control be swapped between pilot and RIO at any time (pilot/copilot)?

 

The Tomcat was a true "2-crew" aircraft and the pilot had nearly no control of the RADAR - the lone function was the boresight PLM radar mode for ACM. The pilot did have a repeater view of the TID displayed on the HSI screen while in A-A mode, but no true radar controls except the PLM button on the throttle.

 

Otherwise, the RIO essential for all other radar tasks. Having Jester AI work properly will be critical for good F-14 gameplay. Having tried with the AS F-14, jumping back and forth between seats (given the manual and involving nature of both flight and radar operations) won't be viable IMHO. A human would be best of course, but the radar will probably take some effort to learn compared to other DCS modules (again, very analog).

 

RIOs also handled navigation, countermeasures, commanded most BVR engagements, and handled comms. All INS controls are in the RIO cockpit for example, though the pilot does have control of TACAN and can change loaded INS waypoints (from what I can tell).

 

Hope this helps answer your questions.

 

-Nick

[addde]

... Lots of info

Nice!

 

RIOs also handled navigation, countermeasures, commanded most BVR engagements

Just wondering about the countermeasures. In what regard does the RIO Control them? I seem to remember from "speed and angels" that the pilot pumped out a bunch of flares when they got shot at by an IR sam. Is it different on the -D?

[OnlyforDCS]

Very good question about the capabilites of the Jester AI RIO. I too was wondering if the Jester AI would be capable of handling the BVR engagement without much human input.

 

For example will it be able to designate targets in TWS based on the detected threats all by itself or will it need "hand holding" by way of commands?

 

It will definitely be fun playing with another human player, but there are quite a lot of lonewolfs out there who would also be keen to fly this aircraft. (Not to mention people who never venture online)

[BlackLion213]

Just wondering about the countermeasures. In what regard does the RIO Control them? I seem to remember from "speed and angels" that the pilot pumped out a bunch of flares when they got shot at by an IR sam. Is it different on the -D?

 

I'm not totally sure. Both pilot and RIO can dispense chaff and flares manually (pilot uses the DLC activation button on the side of the control stick), but there are also automatic dispense modes that the RIO can select. Plus the F-14A/B has the ALQ-100 or ALQ-126 (depending on block or upgrade status) internal ECM system which is primarily managed by the RIO IIRC.

 

-Nick

[addde]

I'm not totally sure. Both pilot and RIO can dispense chaff and flares manually (pilot uses the DLC activation button on the side of the control stick), but there are also automatic dispense modes that the RIO can select. Plus the F-14A/B has the ALQ-100 or ALQ-126 (depending on block or upgrade status) internal ECM system which is primarily managed by the RIO IIRC.

 

-Nick

 

:thumbup:

[FWind]

 

It also did not have a pitch trim compensator so expect to trim the aircraft with any significant change in airspeed or change in wing sweep (such as manual sweep changes).

 

 

I Found Mach trim in F-14‘s manual. What difference with pitch trim compensator?

 

nick

[BlackLion213]

I Found Mach trim in F-14‘s manual. What difference with pitch trim compensator?

 

nick

 

The pitch trim compensator in the F-15 manages the aircraft's trim at all airspeeds and really reduces the number of trim inputs needed during normal flight (I barely need to trim the F-15C when I fly it).

 

The mach trim system in the F-14 only activates during transonic and supersonic flight. It does reduce the degree of trim inputs required to maintain level flight, but does not fully trim the aircraft (which depends on load and configuration of the aircraft). F-14s have a lot of mach tuck at transonic/supersonic speeds so this reduces the amount of trim required.

 

There also an Integrated Trim System that provides automatic trimming of the aircraft during flap extension/retraction and speedbrake deployment, but it only functions during these activities and does not provide aircraft trim changes during normal flight.

 

Overall, the F-14 is a manually trimmed aircraft that has a few functions to help during events known to cause major pitch/trim changes (transonic flight and flap/speedbrake operations). The F-15C's pitch trim compensator provides automatic trim changes throughout the flight regime and minimizes the need for pilot trim inputs.

 

At least this is how I understand it...:music_whistling:

 

-Nick

[FWind]

The pitch trim compensator in the F-15 manages the aircraft's trim at all airspeeds and really reduces the number of trim inputs needed during normal flight (I barely need to trim the F-15C when I fly it).

 

The mach trim system in the F-14 only activates during transonic and supersonic flight. It does reduce the degree of trim inputs required to maintain level flight, but does not fully trim the aircraft (which depends on load and configuration of the aircraft). F-14s have a lot of mach tuck at transonic/supersonic speeds so this reduces the amount of trim required.

 

There also an Integrated Trim System that provides automatic trimming of the aircraft during flap extension/retraction and speedbrake deployment, but it only functions during these activities and does not provide aircraft trim changes during normal flight.

 

Overall, the F-14 is a manually trimmed aircraft that has a few functions to help during events known to cause major pitch/trim changes (transonic flight and flap/speedbrake operations). The F-15C's pitch trim compensator provides automatic trim changes throughout the flight regime and minimizes the need for pilot trim inputs.

 

At least this is how I understand it...:music_whistling:

 

-Nick

 

Yeah, The F-14's Mach trim provide trim in Mach 0.65 to 2.4, and Automatic Pitch Trim used in autopilot. Is the Automatic Pitch Trim in F-14 have limitation??

 

-Nick

[BlackLion213]

Yeah, The F-14's Mach trim provide trim in Mach 0.65 to 2.4, and Automatic Pitch Trim used in autopilot. Is the Automatic Pitch Trim in F-14 have limitation??

 

-Nick

 

It must have some limitations. The flight characteristics section of the NATOPS manual states that max power acceleration runs require continuous trimming to maintain neutral stick position. It also states that neutral trim is hard to achieve at speeds where the wings will sweep and expect to make a trim change with any power setting changes.

 

Sounds like it needs plenty of manual trimming. I'll try to post a page on this topic from the manual tonight. If you have the manual, go to section 11.3.7 and it details these characteristics.

 

-Nick

[Cobra847]

It must have some limitations. The flight characteristics section of the NATOPS manual states that max power acceleration runs require continuous trimming to maintain neutral stick position. It also states that neutral trim is hard to achieve at speeds where the wings will sweep and expect to make a trim change with any power setting changes.

 

Sounds like it needs plenty of manual trimming. I'll try to post a page on this topic from the manual tonight. If you have the manual, go to section 11.3.7 and it details these characteristics.

 

-Nick

 

You guys have the best names.

 

-Nick

[BlackLion213]

You guys have the best names.

 

-Nick

 

Thats funny....I thought so too. :D

 

Here is that section on trimming FWind:

 

 

-Nick

[Dino Might]

You guys have the best names.

 

-Nick

 

I am on my phone and had zoomed so I couldn't see usernames. I was getting a bit worried for a second.

 

For us amateurs, would the F14 rate as requiring more or less frequent trimming than the Su27?

[FWind]

Thats funny....I thought so too. :D

 

Here is that section on trimming FWind:

 

 

-Nick

 

:thumbup:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Nick

Edited May 17, 2017 by FWind

[DoomEngine]

i'm still trying to figure out, for what upcoming aircraft i should get excited about

 

this is the aircraft you are looking for.

[Pocket Sized]

For us amateurs, would the F14 rate as requiring more or less frequent trimming than the Su27?

 

The Su-27's control system actually INCREASES the amount of trim required as airspeed changes - this eased the transition from conventionally stable aircraft for the pilots.

 

The F-14 won't need as much trim but the stick will likely be more sensitive at high speed, and as others have said, there are a lot of things that influence the trim required (mach, flap/wing position, thrust changes, etc)

 

Also, about the F-15, its pitch trim compensator is a closed loop system that actively trims for a constant stick force per G (1G when your hand is off the stick). The F-14 has systems in place that reduce (but don't eliminate) the trim requirement during certain flight events.

[twistking]

thanks to you all for the detailed info about the control system.

 

sounds like the f-14 will be a fun and challenging aircraft to fly.

i find it quite strange by the way, that when people discuss upcoming or potential aircrafts in this forum, the general flight controls / handling characteristics are never of great concern.

 

this is the aircraft you are looking for.

nah, it looks like this one would suffer from a serious lack of afterburning turbofans!!!

Edited May 17, 2017 by twistking

[probad]

the general flight controls / handling characteristics are never of great concern.

while it might be a point of interest, id never consider it an issue of concern because id never write off an aircraft for its handling characteristics.

 

for all airplanes are wonderful.

[Pocket Sized]

while it might be a point of interest, id never consider it an issue of concern because id never write off an aircraft for its handling characteristics.

 

for all airplanes are wonderful.

 

I like hearing about them because it usually increases my hype for the plane.