F-14A

[Kev2go]

That's true, to each his own.

 

Speaking for myself, I also prefer the Cold-War fleet-defender attributes of the Tomcat.

 

 

You would still be able to Fleet defend with a F14B(U) or a F14D.

 

The only difference is the time setting that it would fit in time frames alongside 21st century assets like the A10C, F/A18C. The most modern scenarios are fictional. AS would be cold war scenarios as the cold war never went hot. Evne though Historical A10A or older F/A18C lots and F/A18A would have more relevant. for prior conflicts, and fitting to serve along side F14A or the specific iteration of the F14B.

 

 

 

To each their own. It was the same thing in the F16 thread ( or any Aircraft threadto be honest) no one can seem to agree which variant should be held more important over others, , as a vocal minorities will say they want a A variat, others a C variant, others A specific Production block or post production upgrade etc etc, others arguing over export variations. Everyone has thier favorite variant or favorite era of that given airframes life.

 

But i guess heatblurs decision was the best compromise to Include a Mid 90s B with Lantirn ( pre F14B(U) and a 1980s F14A.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

Uhhh.....seems a rather hyperbolic statement for a sustained turn rate difference of 0.5 deg/sec....

 

-Nick

 

Considering that the T/W ratio of the TF30's was basically comparable to that of Preceding Phantom, and the fact the Navy had desired their fighter to have 1-1 T/W ratio ( or better) like the Air force did end up with their F15, and f16's , then yes then the result was a underachieving engines considering they failed to meet that desired goal, never mind the reliability issues. With the F111 the Tf30s weren't as big an issue given the less intense manipulation of the throttles involved with Ground atttack role ( Someone else mentioned why the Engines were tolerated in the Viggen)

 

Due to the tomcats weight even then the B's still dont manage to achieve as good T/W ratio as AF counterparts although they arent that far behind.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Kev2go

[Wizard_03]

It shouldn't be too bad, the F-14A had the same max trap at each time point, but is ~1800 lbs lighter overall. The F-14 started with a max trap of 51800, but this was increased in the late-80s or early-90s to 54000. It was the same for all 3 versions of the F-14 in the fleet.

 

In general, the TF30 will have plenty of performance for the pattern, but will run at slightly higher thrust settings. The difference between the engines will be most noticeable while flying the ball since the TF30's response time is definitely slower. This will likely be the issue that most players notice, especially since the version of direct lift control planned for the mid-80s F-14A is a lot less effective than the version of the F-14B.

 

-Nick

 

Very informative! I didn’t know the F-14A we’re getting had DLC at all. I can definitely see the responsiveness causing me grief. I have a hard time staying ahead of the B, it’s getting better, but not perfect. I can imagine it’ll take even more discipline in the A.

[BlackLion213]

Considering that the T/W ratio of the TF30's was basically comparable to that of Preceding Phantom, and the fact the Navy had desired their fighter to have 1-1 T/W ratio ( or better) like the Air force did end up with their F15, and f16's , then yes then the result was a underachieving engines considering they failed to meet that desired goal, never mind the reliability issues. With the F111 the Tf30s weren't as big an issue given the less intense manipulation of the throttles involved with Ground atttack role ( Someone else mentioned why the Engines were tolerated in the Viggen)

 

Due to the tomcats weight even then the B's still dont manage to achieve as good T/W ratio as AF counterparts although they arent that far behind.

 

So you agree that comparing this to a paraplegic is hyperbolic.

 

You are describing the difference between squatting 405 lbs with the B and 315 lbs with the A while your prior statement reflects someone without functional legs.....

 

-Nick

[Fri13]

A module developer offering a historical two variants of the aircrafts for flight simulators for study purposes, the people then argue how it is a bad and terrible decision?

 

No one is taking the B away from you, just relax. You don't need to fly A if you don't want to study it.

[Wizard_03]

In the F-14A will we have use the HSI functionality for our RWR display since it has the old system with no repeater in the cockpit?

[BlackLion213]

In the F-14A will we have use the HSI functionality for our RWR display since it has the old system with no repeater in the cockpit?

 

Yes indeed.

 

Very informative! I didn’t know the F-14A we’re getting had DLC at all. I can definitely see the responsiveness causing me grief. I have a hard time staying ahead of the B, it’s getting better, but not perfect. I can imagine it’ll take even more discipline in the A.

 

The performance of the TF30 coupled with some aero characteristics of the F-14 airframe were the reasons that DLC was needed in the first place. Basically there are some challenging situations that are created by the spool down times of the TF30 coupled with the lift vs AOA of the airframe, the large hook to eye distance, and the effects of the "burble".

 

So when pilots are coming down the glideslope, "the burble" creates a slight updraft mid-way down the groove and a noticeable down draft right as the tip of the nose crosses the carrier's round down (pilot's vantage point). That downdraft requires a small power addition, but afterwards the TF30 wouldn't spool down fast enough to settle back down after the downdraft disappeared. This was partly from the TF30's slow spool down and because of the lift vs AOA of the airframe in the approach configuration. The F-14 has a ton of lift and the coefficient of lift vs AOA is very steep, meaning that small increases in AOA add a lot of lift. This is why pilots describe the F-14 as "floaty", power reductions cause a small initial increase in AOA as the flight path changes, but this small change (too small to see on the AOA gauge) slightly increases lift and drag. So the airframe wants to slow down slightly without increasing the descent rate as much as expected. So power adjustments take slightly longer to manifest changes in FPM, this can be offset with a small nudge of the stick to adjust flight path. However, the big hook to eye distance means that flattening out at the ramp (from nudging the nose down) could easily cause the hook to sail over all 4 wires resulting in a bolter.

 

So DLC was developed such that no power correction or attitude adjustment is made after the burble. The pilot adds a bit of power for the down draft then hits the DLC thumbwheel full open to maintain glideslope without flattening out.

 

The version of DLC in the F-14B was one of two solutions tested in 1972-73 to address this problem. The test pilots preferred the "B version" since it was far more effective, but USN decision makers were concerned that pilots would "over do it" on using DLC after the burble and risk ramp strikes. It was easier to teach pilots to just go full open on DLC after the burble then use as needed (so it was said). So the F-14A's original DLC is a lot less effective. The USN later realized that the "B version" DLC would be helpful to pilots and it made its way into the F-14A+/B as that version was produced from 1986-90. The new DLC was later integrated into all F-14A's (and D's of course) as well.

 

That said, "the burble" is not currently part of DCS so DLC is mostly just a general "glideslope adjustment tool" instead of being used for its original purpose.

 

-Nick

[Wizard_03]

Amazing, I had never considered the spool DOWN time being a issue. I assumed it was the spool up time, and the increased risk of getting too slow and staying slow, but that's fascinating.

 

From what I've noticed DLC works much better going down than up on GS in practice, and that makes a lot of sense, considering that's what it was created for. I can see the burble having a huge effect on the aircraft due to its lifting body and large wing span, and I think I had heard somewhere the F-14 actually has the largest hook to eye distance in any carrier jet. I read in victory's case 1 essay that there is indeed a tendency to overuse DLC in the F-14B so discipline was required to make sure to use power as the primary method for GS control and DLC just for small corrections such as in the burble.

 

 

Starting too all make sense.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Wizard_03

[Top Jockey]

Oh boy how much I respect this! This is exactly my sentiment with the Tomcat, my fantasy is for a Iceland map with a Red Storm Rising campaign. I want 1980's scenarios where the Tomcat was king of the Naval arena. But people cry to have the Sparrowhawk so it makes it easier for them, god know's how Tomcat pilots put up with the A/B's avionics before the upgrades, must of been impossible to fly with a HUD that didn't show altitude and speed. It's really not hard in game to glance at the wheel and get a rough idea how many knots you're doing.

 

Yep, just like Strike Fighters 2: North Atlantic.

[captain_dalan]

Considering that the T/W ratio of the TF30's was basically comparable to that of Preceding Phantom, and the fact the Navy had desired their fighter to have 1-1 T/W ratio ( or better) like the Air force did end up with their F15, and f16's , then yes then the result was a underachieving engines considering they failed to meet that desired goal, never mind the reliability issues. With the F111 the Tf30s weren't as big an issue given the less intense manipulation of the throttles involved with Ground atttack role ( Someone else mentioned why the Engines were tolerated in the Viggen)

 

Due to the tomcats weight even then the B's still dont manage to achieve as good T/W ratio as AF counterparts although they arent that far behind.

 

If only that T-W ratio was that crucial to the performance.

Check out the bleed rates and the sustained turns mate. Below 10-15000ft the only difference (in AB) is the energy recovery rates/climbing maneuvers. Even those are mostly apparent in the low mach numbers.