Excessive pipper lag?

[Noctrach]

Hey all.

With an old analogue computer like the Tomcat's I'd expect some lag between the pipper position and the path of the bullets. There's a helpful targeting diamond to show you this difference.

However, the lag on the sight in the F-14 seems quite excessive, where even if you're firing on a target pulling only a couple G, the bullets will land multiple plane-lengths behind the pipper.

 

https://gfycat.com/snappycarefreeerne

https://gfycat.com/oddperfectgrizzlybear

 

Both these shots were taken at about 2-2.5G and both landed about 2 entire flanker-lengths short.

Is there still tweaking to be done or was it like this in the real jet?

 

 

Edit: as additional info, I do have my pipper set to +53 MIL. The pipper really only starts being accurate under about 2000 feet slant range, which is right about where the breakaway cross appears :/

In further testing it also doesn't seem to take sideslip into account at all. Which brings me to the question, does the target computer calculate the pipper based on G-forces or is it showing you where the bullets would be if the target was not turning at all?

Edited April 2, 2020 by Noctrach

[Airhunter]

Did you align the INS properly and not over G the airframe? Last I can remember the radar gunsight in the Tomcat is a laserbeam.

[Noctrach]

It's an airstarted mission and I haven't exceeded 8G in either attempt, I tend to fly her between 6.5-7.5

I'll give ground start + fine alignment a try

The sight really is a laserbeam... but one that lags significantly behind the target until you hit the breakaway cross :\

[Airhunter]

Try a ground start and see how it goes.

[Noctrach]

Results seem slightly better but that might be imaginary. With the pipper stable on the centreline behind the flanker's cockpit, the rounds still definitely pass at least a full plane's length behind the target when fired from about 2500-2800 ft slant range.

The shots that hit always have the pipper slightly ahead of the target's nose and register on the elevators or engines.

 

 

Compared to my experience with the F-16, which lands shots exactly where I place my pipper, the difference is still way more than I'd expect even with old radar tech.

In the F-14 I genuinely find the CCIP bombing/gunnery pipper more accurate than the air-to-air gunsight.

Edited April 2, 2020 by Noctrach

[shagrat]

Hey all.

With an old analogue computer like the Tomcat's I'd expect some lag between the pipper position and the path of the bullets. There's a helpful targeting diamond to show you this difference.

However, the lag on the sight in the F-14 seems quite excessive, where even if you're firing on a target pulling only a couple G, the bullets will land multiple plane-lengths behind the pipper.

 

https://gfycat.com/snappycarefreeerne

https://gfycat.com/oddperfectgrizzlybear

 

Both these shots were taken at about 2-2.5G and both landed about 2 entire flanker-lengths short.

Is there still tweaking to be done or was it like this in the real jet?

 

 

Edit: as additional info, I do have my pipper set to +53 MIL. The pipper really only starts being accurate under about 2000 feet slant range, which is right about where the breakaway cross appears :/

In further testing it also doesn't seem to take sideslip into account at all. Which brings me to the question, does the target computer calculate the pipper based on G-forces or is it showing you where the bullets would be if the target was not turning at all?

The pipper tries to show you the calculated position the rounds will go through, at the distance mentioned in the manual (see below) that very moment at predefined distances or actual target distance. It cannot predict course or speed changes of the enemy. Also it needs a second or two to adjust on changes at your side of the equation.

You look pretty well aligned and tracking the target nicely, though, yet BATR shows not enough lead?

Did you track at constant G or were you still pulling more Gs or relaxing the stick (reduce Gs) while firing?

 

(...)"In RTGS the WCS computes the bullet trajectory and displays the location the bullets will pass through at 1,000 and 2,000 feet, if no target data is available from the WCS. The pipper representing bullet location at 1,000 feet and the diamond representing the bullet location at 2,000 feet."(...)"If target data is available from the WCS (target tracked in an STT mode) the pipper instead displays bullet location at the target’s current range out to 4,000 feet. The diamond will display radar line of sight to the target (target location). This means that when having a target track the pilot should fly the aircraft to place the pipper over the target to hit it.

 

In addition to computing the solution to put bullets at the targets location the RTGS sight will also calculate where the bullets actually are in relation to the target when at target range. When the bullets fired are computed to be at the target’s location the diamond switches from target indication to indicating bullet position at target range (BATR). This is also indicated by the diamond flashing.

 

Using this symbology it’s possible to see where the target would have needed to be to be hit by the bullets. If the gun engagement was executed successfully this means that the diamond should still be on top of the target, blinking, indicating that the bullets passed through the target’s location."(...)

[Noctrach]

You look pretty well aligned and tracking the target nicely, though, yet BATR shows not enough lead?

Did you track at constant G or were you still pulling more Gs or relaxing the stick (reduce Gs) while firing?

 

 

Thanks for your reply!

What you've mentioned seems to correlate with what one of the experts in the F-14 discord group hypothesized, namely fluctuating G forces during the shot.

 

I don't think this is particularly caused by my stick inputs, as the shots I used for reference were only the steady tracking solutions. (although there's always some blame to put on my hamfisted gunnery attempts )

It seems likely the problem lies rather in the fact that these tests were done on AI airplanes flying their stupid stall-speed looping patterns. The shots were all taken in the up-hill/over the top part of the climb, where you have a simultaneous decline of effective G and a rapid positive attitude change.

 

I could see how this would throw off both sides of the calculation in the WCS.. your nose and bullets are tracking up-hill while the registered G forces decrease.

I'll repeat the experiment with a squadron matey in a level turning fight when I get the time.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Noctrach

[Longiron]

Thanks for your reply!

What you've mentioned seems to correlate with what one of the experts in the F-14 discord group hypothesized, namely fluctuating G forces during the shot.

 

I don't think this is particularly caused by my stick inputs, as the shots I used for reference were only the steady tracking solutions. (although there's always some blame to put on my hamfisted gunnery attempts )

It seems likely the problem lies rather in the fact that these tests were done on AI airplanes flying their stupid stall-speed looping patterns. The shots were all taken in the up-hill/over the top part of the climb, where you have a simultaneous decline of effective G and a rapid positive attitude change.

 

I could see how this would throw off both sides of the calculation in the WCS.. your nose and bullets are tracking up-hill while the registered G forces decrease.

I'll repeat the experiment with a squadron matey in a level turning fight when I get the time.

 

also note you have negative closure, helping bandit to out run the freedom seeds.