PSA: F-14 Performance/FM Development Status + Guided Discussion

[Sandman1330]

2 hours ago, Spurts said:

I would say so, not only is speed limited to under 400, but 400 feels like riding down a mountainside in a wheelbarrow during an avalanche.  Just start using energy tactics against them (that does NOT mean strict 2-Circle rate fighting).  Anyone dropping the big boys down above 200 is missing the point of the Tomcat, it gives you so many tools you can use in BFM but a certain YouTuber has convinced people that big flaps = wins.

I wish it were as simple as using energy tactics though. Even in a hornet or viper, with 250kts energy surplus, the flapping tomcat is able to stay inside your turn and spiral up without stalling out, where it should bleed speed and stall. Of course one can extend away, build turning room, and come back for a face shot, but my point being that it seems to benefit from greatly increased lift at low speed and AoA without sufficient drag penalty.

However, with only my rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics leading me to believe it generates too much lift at low speed, managing to do so with low AoA and drag, I can’t say it’s modelled incorrectly. I trust the devs if they say they feel it’s flushed out appropriately.

Just so folks understand where I’m coming from, here is an example. I pushed this situation intentionally to see if he could follow. Spiral up started under 5000ft, went up to 15,000. I initiated it when he was stalled out over the top of a loop, 100kts while I was over 400. He managed to roll out of the loop and spiral up with me, maintaining a better turn rate and tighter radius, with similar AoA, and still managed to accelerate nose high. I mean, if this is correct, I have no data to refute it, just that he’s generating a ton of lift (indicated by climb and turn rate), at low speed and low AoA. Just feels off aerodynamically. But once again, if the devs feel it’s correct, I got nothing to refute it. Just curious if it was on the list to look at or not.

To clarify as well, dude was an awesome tomcat driver, I’m not trying to take anything away from him. I’m not sharing this to analyze the tactics as I’ve said above I pushed the situation for testing purposes.

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Sandman1330

[Skarp]

4 hours ago, Sandman1330 said:

I wish it were as simple as using energy tactics though. Even in a hornet or viper, with 250kts energy surplus, the flapping tomcat is able to stay inside your turn and spiral up without stalling out, where it should bleed speed and stall. Of course one can extend away, build turning room, and come back for a face shot, but my point being that it seems to benefit from greatly increased lift at low speed and AoA without sufficient drag penalty.

However, with only my rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics leading me to believe it generates too much lift at low speed, managing to do so with low AoA and drag, I can’t say it’s modelled incorrectly. I trust the devs if they say they feel it’s flushed out appropriately.

Just so folks understand where I’m coming from, here is an example. I pushed this situation intentionally to see if he could follow. Spiral up started under 5000ft, went up to 15,000. I initiated it when he was stalled out over the top of a loop, 100kts while I was over 400. He managed to roll out of the loop and spiral up with me, maintaining a better turn rate and tighter radius, with similar AoA, and still managed to accelerate nose high. I mean, if this is correct, I have no data to refute it, just that he’s generating a ton of lift (indicated by climb and turn rate), at low speed and low AoA. Just feels off aerodynamically. But once again, if the devs feel it’s correct, I got nothing to refute it. Just curious if it was on the list to look at or not.

To clarify as well, dude was an awesome tomcat driver, I’m not trying to take anything away from him. I’m not sharing this to analyze the tactics as I’ve said above I pushed the situation for testing purposes.

 

 

Depends how much fuel you had on board. If you had 4-6k lbs of fuel …. Slick , you’re a rocket ship. Also need to understand what the energy state of your opponent was. If he was m1 and went into the climb and you tried to follow that from 240 knots it ain’t going to happen. 

[streakeagle]

If you study aerodynamics, you will find a long thin wing with no sweep generates a ton of lift with very little AoA. The problem with long thing wings is that they break under high loads and are not the ideal solution for high speeds due to their high drag. The auto sweep on the F-14 was originally tuned maximize lift. But, that proved to be a bad choice for structural integrity, so they optimized it for low drag. At speeds where the wing is full out with flaps, the F-14 generates a tremendous amount of lift compared to typical trapezoidal wings with 35-45 degrees of sweep. Not only is the lift great at low speeds, but also the lift/drag ratio: it is extremely fuel efficient, which makes for outstanding endurance. Variable geometry costs weight, complexity, and money, but it does come with some great benefits. At supersonic and stall speeds is where it shows its strengths compared to most other fighter wings that are optimized for combat at Mach 0.8 to Mach 0.9 with compromises to support Mach 2 flight.

[Spurts]

7 hours ago, Sandman1330 said:

 

However, with only my rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics leading me to believe it generates too much lift at low speed, managing to do so with low AoA and drag, I can’t say it’s modelled incorrectly.

 

 

I have much more than a rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics and I spend a lot of time testing the Tomcat flight model.  Don't let Tacview tell you AoA, it is almost always wrong.  The drag is accurate, the lift is accurate, they need to be to simulate landing behaviour.  If you keep steepening your climb, and throw some reversals in, you will be over his head and he will stall, no ifs ands or buts about it.  You may not have long to pounce before he recovers or he may not chase your nose and will lower his to keep speed up.

[Sandman1330]

While I do appreciate everyone’s input, to clarify what I am asking, and what I am not asking:

I am not asking the devs to re-open the flight model if they feel it is in the finished state.

I am asking if they believe it is in the finished state or if they plan to do further tweaking. That’s all I’m asking.

Again, I do appreciate the input but it is an answer, from the devs, to my question that I seek. I know they are dedicated to a detailed and accurate flight model and if they state, in their professional opinion, the FM is finished and accurate, that’s cool with me. The rest of the info was merely background. Unfortunately in the BFM community there isn’t enough downside to the jammed flaps in relation to the benefits gained to dissuade the vast majority of players from doing it. I’d like to see it change but if it’s accurate, I guess it is what it is.

Cheers all.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Sandman1330

[Lurker]

4 hours ago, Sandman1330 said:

Unfortunately in the BFM community there isn’t enough downside to the jammed flaps in relation to the benefits gained to dissuade the vast majority of players from doing it.

The downside is you just broke your plane. If all you care about is guns only BFM, with magic airstarts then it doesnt make a difference. In a real F14 you would never fight BFM with flaps down because A) it will break your plane and B) it will break your $%&345! plane you lunatic and you might crash at some point because of it and even die so don't do it. Ever. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Lurker

[Kefa]

11 hours ago, Sandman1330 said:

While I do appreciate everyone’s input, to clarify what I am asking, and what I am not asking:

I am not asking the devs to re-open the flight model if they feel it is in the finished state.

I am asking if they believe it is in the finished state or if they plan to do further tweaking. That’s all I’m asking.

Again, I do appreciate the input but it is an answer, from the devs, to my question that I seek. I know they are dedicated to a detailed and accurate flight model and if they state, in their professional opinion, the FM is finished and accurate, that’s cool with me. The rest of the info was merely background. Unfortunately in the BFM community there isn’t enough downside to the jammed flaps in relation to the benefits gained to dissuade the vast majority of players from doing it. I’d like to see it change but if it’s accurate, I guess it is what it is.

Cheers all.

 

Steamer discussed flap behaviour at least in the real world.

 

 

[Spurts]

That's how I use the flaps, if I'm already slow and need to be slower/tighter to get the shot.  I pull them up as soon as I can.

[illegal1984]

Flaps are important on a dogfight server below 200 knots. You can use them up to mach 0.4 without breaking them. Still, I sometimes fly completely without them if I want to improve certain areas of my ACM skills. Depends how much you care about "winning" and what you actually use the a dogfight server for. I could go flaps out, exploit the rudder, SAS yaw off, and use differential thrust all day with manual wing sweep. Good to be familiar with all of those. I could "win" a lot more doing that...doesn't really teach me anything. I think it is better to always learn.

[SuperOldGuy]

On 12/19/2022 at 1:50 PM, Sandman1330 said:

I wish it were as simple as using energy tactics though. Even in a hornet or viper, with 250kts energy surplus, the flapping tomcat is able to stay inside your turn and spiral up without stalling out, where it should bleed speed and stall. Of course one can extend away, build turning room, and come back for a face shot, but my point being that it seems to benefit from greatly increased lift at low speed and AoA without sufficient drag penalty.

However, with only my rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics leading me to believe it generates too much lift at low speed, managing to do so with low AoA and drag, I can’t say it’s modelled incorrectly. I trust the devs if they say they feel it’s flushed out appropriately.

Just so folks understand where I’m coming from, here is an example. I pushed this situation intentionally to see if he could follow. Spiral up started under 5000ft, went up to 15,000. I initiated it when he was stalled out over the top of a loop, 100kts while I was over 400. He managed to roll out of the loop and spiral up with me, maintaining a better turn rate and tighter radius, with similar AoA, and still managed to accelerate nose high. I mean, if this is correct, I have no data to refute it, just that he’s generating a ton of lift (indicated by climb and turn rate), at low speed and low AoA. Just feels off aerodynamically. But once again, if the devs feel it’s correct, I got nothing to refute it. Just curious if it was on the list to look at or not.

To clarify as well, dude was an awesome tomcat driver, I’m not trying to take anything away from him. I’m not sharing this to analyze the tactics as I’ve said above I pushed the situation for testing purposes.

 

 

 

A -B Tomcat with 50% fuel and full weapons load (not sure what that load is exactly) has just over a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio IRL. So a ton of lift, check, a ton of power, check, big control surfaces to keep it all under control, check, and a good pilot equals one hell of a dogfighter.

 

Please share your data and/or real world experiences that made you come to the conclusion that the Tomcat "should be" stalling out...

Edited December 22, 2022 by SuperOldGuy

[Katj]

On 12/20/2022 at 2:17 AM, streakeagle said:

If you study aerodynamics, you will find a long thin wing with no sweep generates a ton of lift with very little AoA. The problem with long thing wings is that they break under high loads and are not the ideal solution for high speeds due to their high drag. The auto sweep on the F-14 was originally tuned maximize lift. But, that proved to be a bad choice for structural integrity, so they optimized it for low drag. At speeds where the wing is full out with flaps, the F-14 generates a tremendous amount of lift compared to typical trapezoidal wings with 35-45 degrees of sweep. Not only is the lift great at low speeds, but also the lift/drag ratio: it is extremely fuel efficient, which makes for outstanding endurance. Variable geometry costs weight, complexity, and money, but it does come with some great benefits. At supersonic and stall speeds is where it shows its strengths compared to most other fighter wings that are optimized for combat at Mach 0.8 to Mach 0.9 with compromises to support Mach 2 flight.

They changed the wing sweep scheduling to minimize drag, but you can still achieve max lift by doing manual sweep full forward with the handle and flying something like 400+ knots. I haven't really tried this a lot though. The upside vs slow full flaps fight is that you don't risk breaking the jet.

[maxsin72]

On 12/18/2022 at 6:49 PM, IronMike said:

No. Why would it be? The drag and lift the flaps add is known by the FM and was there since release. What we added is the ability to jam them (aka to bend or break the torques that drive the flaps). Performance has nothing to do with it. It would be quite a bad FM, if you would have to adjust engine performance to deal with a drag that was induced by flight surfaces. Rather you would want to make sure that the drag and lift they add is set correctly. Which it is.

I had a match vs a guy with F18 and F18 was faster than F14B even if the Cat was with wings at 68°.

I wonder why F18 with his fixed wings is faster than F14B with wings at 68°

Temperature was 20° C, QNH 760/29.92, no wind, payload was only guns

Tacview file attached

F14B VS F18.zip.acmi

Edited December 26, 2022 by maxsin72

[IronMike]

56 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

I had a match vs a guy with F18 and F18 was faster than F14B even if the Cat was with wings at 68°.

I wonder why F18 with his fixed wings is faster than F14B with wings at 68°

Temperature was 20° C, QNH 760/29.92, no wind, payload was only guns

Tacview file attached

F14B VS F18.zip.acmi 131.9 kB · 4 downloads

 

That sounds like a question for the F18 forums. 

[maxsin72]

6 hours ago, IronMike said:

That sounds like a question for the F18 forums. 

Sorry, wrong answer. I think it's a good question for this forum: with the current FM we have already seen that F14B underperforms in acceleration when he is going from mach 0.9 to mach 1.2. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by maxsin72

[Spurts]

Depending on fuel states the F/A-18 will have a much better T/W IIRC.  But still, in a recent test I did B topped out at 1.15M clean at 50% fuel on the deck.  AFAIK there is still some transsonic issues especially when loaded but as for top speeds, I got an A model to 1.56M at 50,000ft with a 4/2/2 loadout, good luck getting a Hornet to get anywhere near that.  Got it to 2.0M with a 0/6/2 load.

[Frosty2124]

8 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

Sorry, wrong answer. I think it's a good question for this forum: with the current FM we have already seen that F14B underperforms in acceleration when he is going from mach 0.9 to mach 1.2. 

 

did you really just tell the developer of the f14 that they're wrong about whether or not they can help you? I'm curious, what experience do you have that puts you ahead of the module SME's

[GGTharos]

9 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

Sorry, wrong answer. I think it's a good question for this forum: with the current FM we have already seen that F14B underperforms in acceleration when he is going from mach 0.9 to mach 1.2. 

 

Then show that against an F-14 acceleration graph.  The F-18 is irrelevant.

[maxsin72]

4 hours ago, Frosty2124 said:

did you really just tell the developer of the f14 that they're wrong about whether or not they can help you? I'm curious, what experience do you have that puts you ahead of the module SME's

The developer told me to write on F18 forum, is this an answer? 

Furthermore the developer knows very well which is the problem : you only need to read all the thread, before posting about what you don't know. 

[Frosty2124]

20 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

The developer told me to write on F18 forum, is this an answer? 

yes... the developer is telling you that it is more relevant elsewhere, surely you wanting to find a solution would appreciate being directed to the best place to answer your question.

20 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

Furthermore the developer knows very well which is the problem : you only need to read all the thread, before posting about what you don't know. 

the hypocrisy in this statement is not lost on me, and hopefully most of the community

[maxsin72]

19 minutes ago, Frosty2124 said:

yes... the developer is telling you that it is more relevant elsewhere, surely you wanting to find a solution would appreciate being directed to the best place to answer your question.

the hypocrisy in this statement is not lost on me, and hopefully most of the community

The developer is telling me nothing.

The hypocrisy is only yours because you didn't even read the thread, so please avoid to post non sense words.

[maxsin72]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Then show that against an F-14 acceleration graph.  The F-18 is irrelevant.

 

•  

 

Skip to 10:00 for acceleration

[IronMike]

We know the transsonic drag issues. We said we’ll fix it. And it’s still within completely acceptable limits and won’t break or make your game, which you finally need to accept @maxsin72. How it compares to other modules is utterly irrelevant to us. Please be so kind and be patient until we get around to fixing it like we promised. Beating a dead horse until then, won’t make us fix it faster. Thank you. 

[maxsin72]

10 minutes ago, IronMike said:

We know the transsonic drag issues. We said we’ll fix it. And it’s still within completely acceptable limits and won’t break or make your game, which you finally need to accept @maxsin72. How it compares to other modules is utterly irrelevant to us. Please be so kind and be patient until we get around to fixing it like we promised. Beating a dead horse until then, won’t make us fix it faster. Thank you. 

Thank you sincerely, this is the right answer

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by maxsin72

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, maxsin72 said:

Skip to 10:00 for acceleration

Thanks for the graph, that's how you help make a change. 

[maxsin72]

32 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Thanks for the graph, that's how you help make a change. 

You are welcome