F-14 A and B Differences

[PhoenixRising]

I am currently trying out the F-14 during the free play weeks. So far, it seems like and awesome module. I did have some questions about the differences between the A and B. Is there a comprehensive list of the differences between the A and B, besides the big difference of engine type?

 

Thanks!

 

Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk

 

 

[Quid]

It's outlined here, first post.  In large regard the currently released F-14A "Block 135 Early Late" and F-14B are very similar excepting the engines and related instrumentation. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Quid
Wrong version

[Uxi]

They're very similar (which is why HB picked the models they did, rather than an early 70s A no with no A-G at all and mid 2000s B with fancier HUD, etc.  Got two for the price of one effectively. 

 

1) Most notably the engines: GE F110 of the F-14B (and F-14D) were much better solving two issues: compressor stalls (which could lead to spins) which were sometimes overstated but pilots had to train to avoid the behaviors causing the issue, not just mashing them forward and back at will, especially when low speed or high AOA (landing and dogfighting). They had much more thrust which changed takeoff dynamics for purposes of engine failure (rare, if ever in game), where losing an engine could immediately lead to asymmetrical thrust, so the F-14A had to launch with afterburners with any ordinance and the F-14B was restricted to mil power. I've never seen an engine failure on takeoff in the same way we don't ever break hooks or cables on trapping, so that latter part is probably moot.

CN: In game terms, the F-14B accelerates quicker and you don't really need to be at all cautious with the throttles.  

 

2) The F-14A-135-GR was effectively the same with RWR and other improvements.  The only thing you won't notice is the Sec mode engine switches, which you'll probably never use anyway.  They both have LANTIRN and full A-G, etc.  Later, HB will do an early version that has an older and less effective RWR as well as an even earlier F-14A-95-GR for Iran that doesn't have external tanks and is far more limited in its weaponry. 

 

3) For accuracy, every squadron had F-14A at some point while only a few (9 or 10 including the RAG) ever went to the F-14B. For those who don't care can easily drag livery into either folder and do what you want. 

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Quid said:

currently released F-14A "Block 135 Early"

Currently we have 135-GR Late as came with earlier update. Early will come later

[Quid]

7 hours ago, draconus said:

Currently we have 135-GR Late as came with earlier update. Early will come later

Whoops!  Got my wires crossed.  Thanks.

[WolfHound009]

Will we get to remove the TCS on the 135-GR (early)?

[LanceCriminal86]

10 hours ago, WolfHound009 said:

Will we get to remove the TCS on the 135-GR (early)?

 

Somewhere in the mix there will be a TCS bullet fairing for when the housing is there but no TCS inside. And they also have mentioned doing the TCS-less style with just the ECM ALQ-100 nub under there, like the Iranian cats and jets that lacked the housing entirely.

 

The question will be can we use those options on each A model separately because there were even later As that had no TCS but all the other later features. 

[WolfHound009]

12 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

Somewhere in the mix there will be a TCS bullet fairing for when the housing is there but no TCS inside. And they also have mentioned doing the TCS-less style with just the ECM ALQ-100 nub under there, like the Iranian cats and jets that lacked the housing entirely.

 

The question will be can we use those options on each A model separately because there were even later As that had no TCS but all the other later features. 

Yeah It would be cool if we could have an option to have just the ALQ-100 nub on the 135-GE (early) for those who want to simulate early block F-14As.

[Tholozor]

Here's a neat diagram of all the different chin pods used on Tomcat variants.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Tholozor

[PhoenixRising]

Thanks for all if the good information.

Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk

[Doc3908]

Got to try the A today for the first time (I'm on stable, so I only got the A a few days ago in the latest stable update). All I did was AAR and a trap. In short, here are my practical observations so far - the A is easier to AAR and harder to trap than the B. Again, this is from a VERY limited experience with the A - just one flight (and from a relative newbie - about 60 hours in the B and 30min in the A). 

[Blood-n-Guts]

I see that the F-14A used the glove vane, this spoiler was used by the superbly made version by Heatblur?

[Swordsman422]

The F-14A version we currently have is from the mid 1990's after they had the glove vanes bolted shut. The earlier versions MIGHT have them, but only as eye candy. They've repeatedly said they aren't going to rewrite the flight model to account for an aerodynamic surface used in such a small area of the flight envelope. 

[WolfHound009]

Does anyone know why the beavertails were changed in later models?

Did the older beavertails offer some disadvantages compared to the new ones?

[Quid]

6 hours ago, WolfHound009 said:

Does anyone know why the beavertails were changed in later models?

Did the older beavertails offer some disadvantages compared to the new ones?

Apparently as a combination of drag, necessity, and cost savings; "Grumman also proposed a redesign of the beaver tail to reduce drag.  It would add 68 lb (31 kg) to the aircraft weight, but could also generate a $15,900 saving per aircraft."[1]  The original boat tail fairings were also suffering from fatigue cracking[2] and the dielectric panels were removed (apparently Air Frame Change 301) which increased the drag even further to the original design (+10DI for aircraft with AFC 301)[3].

 

References:

1. Jon Lake, ed. F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter, (London: Aerospace Publishing, 1998) 35-36.

2. Ibid., 39.

3. NAVAIR NATOPS 01-F14AAA-1, NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model F-14A Aircraft, (1 November 1975), 11-4.

[Swordsman422]

11 hours ago, WolfHound009 said:

Does anyone know why the beavertails were changed in later models?

Did the older beavertails offer some disadvantages compared to the new ones?

 The aerodynamic dielectric panels were prone to flutter cracking since they were right between the engine nozzles, and keeping the panels off caused drag. The newer beaver tail was more structurally and aerodynamically sound. Only the first ~100 or so examples were built with the original beaver tail, and the new one was introduced on the -80GR. By the late 1980s, the original 70 and 75s were relegated to reserve units. They got a lot of other upgrades, but there was no structure to install the RWR receiver back there.