F-14A of 70's Vs F-14A of 90's Vs F-14A Iranian

[WolfHound009]

bro ill be real wit u, I just wanna be able to represent the 81 Sidra shootdown Tomcats. So anything that contributes to that to me is really cool 

[LanceCriminal86]

2 minutes ago, IronMike said:

yep, plus adding aerodyn cover option.

From what I've seen the aero cover was mostly used when ashore where they had the TCS housings available, but not the camera internals as there weren't enough to go around. Mainly RAG, Reserves, and then the squadrons coming off a cruise or doing workups. Then they'd exchange the actual TCS cameras and/or housings with the squadron coming off cruise as they went on cruise. Eventually there were enough TCS that even the reserves and much of the RAG had them. 

Basically late 70s-early 80s mostly ALQ-100 only > then either ALQ-100 or TCS > then TCS or TCS with bullet > and eventually mostly just TCS unless a RAG jet, reserves, or on the way to Davis-Monthan.

Top Gun of course has all 3 setups shown since some was filmed on the Enterprise with VF-213 and VF-114, then you also had VF-51 and VF-111, and VF-1 with random VF-124 in the background. Some shots the "hero" jets had full TCS, others on the ship it was ALQ-100 only, and then also during TOPGUN school sequences you see the bullet housing. I can't remember if VF-114 and 213 were preparing to go on cruise or returning from one, same with 51/111.

11 minutes ago, WolfHound009 said:

bro ill be real wit u, I just wanna be able to represent the 81 Sidra shootdown Tomcats. So anything that contributes to that to me is really cool 

The Sidra jets were -95s, so no ALQ-126 jammers by the intakes/tail and ALQ-100 only. Basically what the Iranian jets would be, but with all the Navy systems still in there. Same jets as in Final Countdown actually. Photos from right after show the tank pylons mounted but apparently they may not have carried tanks on the flight.

[DSplayer]

54 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

If the TCS and ALQ-126 can both be converted to "pods" on both early/late A, it would be huge towards representing more eras.

Another one that could make a huge distinction is the beaver tail at the back and having multiple versions of those to choose from. Of course it sounds like it would be basically impossible since it would probably require changing the model.

[LanceCriminal86]

4 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

Another one that could make a huge distinction is the beaver tail at the back and having multiple versions of those to choose from. Of course it sounds like it would be basically impossible since it would probably require changing the model.

Aware of that, and least likely thing to change. As a rivet counting painter it's something I can live with because I know how complex trying to remove/remodel the boat tail area would be, and then to try and link it to change when ALQ-126 are mounted. When I do older blocks I just remove the layers with the ALQ ochre stuff and paint TPS over it. Just that makes it a lot easier for the eyes to pass right over it.

Bigger are the gun vents, which from what I hear will be tied to the "early" external model instead of something swapped via arguments. Again, something that requires actual mesh changes, really just covering up the NACA holes. A few have done the old vents in textures/normals/roughmets to be pretty damn convincing but up close it does look a tad funky. But it's easier potentially to add some geometry over than to remove/rework.

[WolfHound009]

10 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Aware of that, and least likely thing to change. As a rivet counting painter it's something I can live with because I know how complex trying to remove/remodel the boat tail area would be, and then to try and link it to change when ALQ-126 are mounted. When I do older blocks I just remove the layers with the ALQ ochre stuff and paint TPS over it. Just that makes it a lot easier for the eyes to pass right over it.

Bigger are the gun vents, which from what I hear will be tied to the "early" external model instead of something swapped via arguments. Again, something that requires actual mesh changes, really just covering up the NACA holes. A few have done the old vents in textures/normals/roughmets to be pretty damn convincing but up close it does look a tad funky. But it's easier potentially to add some geometry over than to remove/rework.

Bro why they change beavertail for? Like why did they remove the panel thingys on the side? 

[Swordsman422]

4 hours ago, WolfHound009 said:

Bro why they change beavertail for? Like why did they remove the panel thingys on the side? 

The dielectric panels were positioned just behind and between the engine nozzles, so they experienced flutter and fatigue cracking from the engines. Removing them solved that problem, but created aerodynamic drag that decreased the performance of the aircraft. The new standard boat tail was introduced with Block 80 jets and retained on later models.

[Zeagle]

Reference rivet counting

In my career, I have rarely found any airplane that completely matches the factory spec for the model. Almost all of them have had something changed. Military birds come out of the factory pretty much the same. But soon after they all get changed. This is something that you come up against when you start 3D modelling and researching.  At some point you just have to make a decision and model it.  This gets even harder when all you have access to are museum models. These models usually are a mashup of parts.

I think Heat Blur did a great job with the Tomcat.  

 

[IronMike]

26 minutes ago, Zeagle said:

Reference rivet counting

In my career, I have rarely found any airplane that completely matches the factory spec for the model. Almost all of them have had something changed. Military birds come out of the factory pretty much the same. But soon after they all get changed. This is something that you come up against when you start 3D modelling and researching.  At some point you just have to make a decision and model it.  This gets even harder when all you have access to are museum models. These models usually are a mashup of parts.

I think Heat Blur did a great job with the Tomcat.  

 

Not only in museums, the Tomcat, for any time period, and any bird we came across, was always some kind of patchwork comprised of features and systems that could span the entire Tomcat's lifetime (especially the later in its service you got).

[WolfHound009]

For me, as far as the early Tomcats are concerned the thing that 'makes them' for me is that ALQ-100 chipped under the nose with an absence of the TCS. 

However, back when the HB F-14 was first announced I was always hoping the F-14A we were going to get in DCS was the first cruise model ya know with the IRST.  Having the TCS actually lets me personally somewhat simulate the First Cruise Tomcats in 1974. I just imagine that the TCS is the IRST thingy cos they look kinda similar and I use the appropriate VF-1 and 2 skins which are fantastic (By @_YaeSakura_) so im happy either way. Even if they decide not to allow to switch out the TCS for the ALQ-100 for the -135GR cos i understand its lower priority compared to other stuff I can still fly my representation of an early F-14A.

Plus, just a point of curiosity on my part: HB if u ever wanted to model the ALR-23 IRST, is there even enough data about it? How did it actually work? Was it like a thermal NVG scope or something?

Edited July 15, 2022 by WolfHound009

[LanceCriminal86]

3 minutes ago, WolfHound009 said:

Bro why they change beavertail for? Like why did they remove the panel thingys on the side? 

That's a whole separate thing from the early early jets, apparently stress or degradation of some kind was occurring with the original production design. Then partway through -75GR the revised "production" style was introduced that remained until the ALQ-126 came in with 161168 in like 1981 (same design also on the A+/B).

[LanceCriminal86]

1 hour ago, WolfHound009 said:

For me, as far as the early Tomcats are concerned the thing that 'makes them' for me is that ALQ-100 chipped under the nose with an absence of the TCS. 

However, back when the HB F-14 was first announced I was always hoping the F-14A we were going to get in DCS was the first cruise model ya know with the IRST.  Having the TCS actually lets me personally somewhat simulate the First Cruise Tomcats in 1974. I just imagine that the TCS is the IRST thingy cos they look kinda similar and I use the appropriate VF-1 and 2 skins which are fantastic (By @_YaeSakura_) so im happy either way. Even if they decide not to allow to switch out the TCS for the ALQ-100 for the -135GR cos i understand its lower priority compared to other stuff I can still fly my representation of an early F-14A.

Plus, just a point of curiosity on my part: HB if u ever wanted to model the ALR-23 IRST, is there even enough data about it? How did it actually work? Was it like a thermal NVG scope or something?

 

There's a reason it was immediately disused, it was apparently garbage.

[WarthogOsl]

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

There's a reason it was immediately disused, it was apparently garbage.

Plus, it seems like not even all of the VF-1 Tomcats had it.  James Perry Stevenson's book from 1975 show some VF-1 Tomcats with the IRST and some without.

[LanceCriminal86]

13 minutes ago, WarthogOsl said:

Plus, it seems like not even all of the VF-1 Tomcats had it.  James Perry Stevenson's book from 1975 show some VF-1 Tomcats with the IRST and some without.

Yeah, and there are also photos from the first cruises showing fuel tanks and pylons that some said weren't used. A gent with VF-1 posted a whole ton of his personal photos from those first VF-1 and VF-2 cruises in the Tomcat Association's Facebook, for those in that group. Just search "1974" or "1975" and you should find them in batches.

From his batches the VF-1 jets look to have the IRST, but for sure Bullet 205 from VF-2 is rocking just the ALQ-100. I'll need to look back and see if he had any 1974 pics.

[WarthogOsl]

42 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Yeah, and there are also photos from the first cruises showing fuel tanks and pylons that some said weren't used. A gent with VF-1 posted a whole ton of his personal photos from those first VF-1 and VF-2 cruises in the Tomcat Association's Facebook, for those in that group. Just search "1974" or "1975" and you should find them in batches.

From his batches the VF-1 jets look to have the IRST, but for sure Bullet 205 from VF-2 is rocking just the ALQ-100. I'll need to look back and see if he had any 1974 pics.

FWIW, the book shows #111 with no IRST, but #100 and #114 have it.  #101 is shown in three different early VF-1 paint schemes, but it doesn't have the IRST in any of them.  The VF-2 photos in the books aren't from good angles.

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, IronMike said:

Not only in museums, the Tomcat, for any time period, and any bird we came across, was always some kind of patchwork comprised of features and systems that could span the entire Tomcat's lifetime (especially the later in its service you got).

So will we get our patchwork "early" and "iranian" models before F4 hits? 

4 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

There's a reason it was immediately disused, it was apparently garbage.

Most early ones were not very good for lots of technical reasons. At best under good conditions they could spot stuff like supersonic bombers kinda ok. 

[LanceCriminal86]

5 minutes ago, WarthogOsl said:

FWIW, the book shows #111 with no IRST, but #100 and #114 have it.  #101 is shown in three different early VF-1 paint schemes, but it doesn't have the IRST in any of them.  The VF-2 photos in the books aren't from good angles.

His pics were '74 and '75 after looking back at some of them, they had mostly IRST but by another guy's photos from the following '76 cruise they were ALQ-100 across the board it looks like. There are some oft-quoted maladies from the first cruise like humidity and heat causing electrical problems, internal seals causing FOD, general teething issues, and the IRST just generally not working.

I went looking around and even finding details on the damn things is scarce, photos of the display, what it actually did, performance, nada. It basically was implemented and immediately canned after the first cruise. Some of the T&E jets retained them or kept the housing with an aero cover but it looks like it had no merits worth keeping it around.

[WarthogOsl]

42 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

His pics were '74 and '75 after looking back at some of them, they had mostly IRST but by another guy's photos from the following '76 cruise they were ALQ-100 across the board it looks like. There are some oft-quoted maladies from the first cruise like humidity and heat causing electrical problems, internal seals causing FOD, general teething issues, and the IRST just generally not working.

I went looking around and even finding details on the damn things is scarce, photos of the display, what it actually did, performance, nada. It basically was implemented and immediately canned after the first cruise. Some of the T&E jets retained them or kept the housing with an aero cover but it looks like it had no merits worth keeping it around.

It's odd because there were certainly other jets in the US inventory that had IRST which apparently worked (the F-101 and F-106 for example).  At any rate, my book is from '75, so I believe most of the photos are from '74.

And then to confuse things further, another F-14 book, by Arthur Reed, shows the previously un-IRST'ed Wolfpack 101 with an IRST.

[LanceCriminal86]

1 minute ago, WarthogOsl said:

It's odd because there were certainly other jets in the US inventory that had IRST which apparently worked (the F-101 and F-106 for example).  At any rate, my book is from '75, so I believe most of the photos are from '74.

And then to confuse things further, another F-14 book, by Arthur Reed, shows the previously un-IRST'ed Wolfpack 101 with an IRST.

These photos including '74 have 111 with an IRST and I'm staring at 101 in the ship's hangar with an IRST hanging on it. The crew member says November of '74 stopping in Hong Kong for the NK-101 pic. Frequent Wind wasn't until end of April '75, he had a photo from that time and it's really hard to tell if 111 still had the IRST mounted, it's from a relatively high angle. But it might not be there.

And of course I love seeing the fuel tank pylons and tanks that I've heard some say weren't there as a reason to demand the removable tank pylons "because they weren't used early on".

[captain_dalan]

On 7/13/2022 at 1:27 AM, LanceCriminal86 said:

That site has a lot of missing info, Mike Crutch's CVW 1975-2015 book has a lot more information but he also didn't directly include the RAG or Evaluation squadrons, so sometimes you will see FITWING or VF-101/124 mentioned but often times you won't if the jet started out with one of those squadrons. The other thing is sometimes these dates come from the first record that a jet was shown on an inventory or roster, or seen in a photo with a certain MODEX. Only the actual production and delivery dates from Grumman straight would be able to tell you better what dates a jet was completed and delivered. 

-130s were hitting VF-31 and VF-11 through '84/'85 and even through '87. Some jets went to the RAG or non-fleet squadrons first, which is why the first dates you see are so much later. Perfect example, VF-31 got 161850 in July 1986, VF-11 got 161851 in '87, but suddenly you have 161853 that got to VF-11 in May of 1984. And the last of the -130s went to VF-11 in April 1985, so the dates need a bit more context.

Similar story if you look at the -135s and -140s but it actually gets weirder. The first of the -135 went to VF-124 it looks like and didn't hit a fleet squadron until 1991, similar story for others of the block not seeing fleet squadrons until 1987? But then you look at the 140GRs, the last batch of As, and the first showed up at a fleet squadron in November 1986! Keep looking, and others were reaching fleet squadrons in Jun/July 1986, with the bulk of the production block through December 1986. Two more jets were delivered in January & February 1987.

Then, the last 4 As were delivered to VF-201 and VF-202 by March and April of 1987.

 

But wait, there's more!

 

Sandwiched in there, somewhere from 83-84 and through 1987 and 1988, the remaining jets from production blocks 60 and 65, originally making up the test squadrons at Patuxent River, VX-4, PMTC, and the first jets at VF-124 to train VF-1/2, were all shipped back to Grumman for a complete rebuild. Those jets were rebuilt to -135 standards including the upgraded jamming equipment with new boat tail and work done to the airframes to "zero them out" so to speak. There's not a lot of good info when the jets actually got sent to get rebuilt because many were just sitting around unused, mothballed at Davis-Monthan, or cannibalized.

So in-between the "actual" 135GRs being built, you also had a number being completely rebuilt I believe at St. Augustine or maybe even up at Calverton. All I know is that they were being ferried to VF-201 and VF-201 somewhere from '87-'88 or even '89. Bill Lindner shared a page of his logbook showing he delivered 162711 in April of 1987, and flew 158626 like a week later. VF-201 had enough of their jets by June 1987 to do a reserve exercise and carrier quals on Forrestal, while borrowing two of VF-202's jets. VF-202 didn't have enough jets by then apparently with theirs continuing to be delivered as they were rebuilt.

As my granny used to say, always go to the rivet-counters if you want the gritty details! 

[Schlomo1933]

For me is the A that we have enough. I’d like to have the B with the Sparrowhawk HUD . That would make the B much more interesting for me.I fly the A exclusive since release. 

but I know , the Sparrowhawk HUD will not happen. Because of the lack of information. Don’t want to start such a discussion. I’m only dreaming 
 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Schlomo1933

[lunaticfringe]

On 7/15/2022 at 5:32 PM, WarthogOsl said:

It's odd because there were certainly other jets in the US inventory that had IRST which apparently worked (the F-101 and F-106 for example).  At any rate, my book is from '75, so I believe most of the photos are from '74.

You need to define "worked".  

[WarthogOsl]

30 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

You need to define "worked".  

I mean, I've heard interviews with guys who flew the F-101 and F-106, and they didn't seem to have any complaints about it.  It sounds like the one in the f-14 almost didn't work at all.

[Spurts]

4 minutes ago, WarthogOsl said:

I mean, I've heard interviews with guys who flew the F-101 and F-106, and they didn't seem to have any complaints about it.  It sounds like the one in the f-14 almost didn't work at all.

The one in the A.  The one in the D picked up a tanker at 190nm and is the basis of the current IRST21/Legion pod.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Spurts said:

The one in the A.  The one in the D picked up a tanker at 190nm and is the basis of the current IRST21/Legion pod.

There is so much about IRST stuff that isn't modeled in DCS and for all practical purposes the OG tech from the 50s/60's has nothing to do with modern systems. I seriously hope ED steps and actually models some of this. At least for the older systems the limitations are at least known or can be pretty easily worked out from basic principles of how IR detectors work.

Though given the fact all IR missiles and IRST currently work through clouds (hint, they shouldn't) doesn't give me alot of hope on this front as ED doesn't seem to have people that understand IR stuff.

[WarthogOsl]

2 hours ago, Spurts said:

The one in the A.  The one in the D picked up a tanker at 190nm and is the basis of the current IRST21/Legion pod.

Yes, the original one is what I was referring to.  Again, wondering how or why it was so bad when apparently the type used in earlier aircraft like the F-101 and F-106 seemed to work fine according to pilot accounts.