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

[Baz000]

Listen guys, i'm no USNTPS pilot nor will I pretend to be... Tho I do have a patch from them and HX-21 Blackjacks from an airshow I went to years ago. But I promise they are in a plastic bag with other patches I have and not attached to any article of clothing of mine and especially not when virtually flying in DCS.

I have to be honest with you, when you get into the mathematics and some of the terms of art it does become difficult to follow as a lay person who just has some basic knowledge from self-learning and a little bit of formal instruction in unmanned aircraft systems.

I think I see where the point of contention is, figures which are mathematically derived based on flight testing data have a probability of error associated with them because it is physically impossible in the real world to replicate the exact same flight conditions and pilot inputs without any variation... So 3% margin is apparently what to shoot for in accuracy to hit the top bar in flight testing.

With that said, there are other forms of testing as well for certain things you can't flight test safely or are so cost prohibitive such as you would perform in wind tunnels or computer simulations.

Like, for example in this video this flight test wasn't intended to become a improv test of trying to pull a F-14A out of a flat spin... IRL it is a very risky business to be in, especially as a test pilot.

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Baz000

[Hummingbird]

All well and true, but let's remember our sim is a mathematical creation itself. So lets stick on the path of striving to match the flight test derived data & math as precisely as we can, esp. since that is the std. set for the other modules as well - not to say they all currently meet it ofc, many others are also WIP here as it's complex stuff, but the goal is the same = to precisely match the performance charts.

Also Fat Creason has done a marvelous job so far, and is still tuning. So I'm sure Ps going to match well everywhere in the end, esp. in the subsonic region.

We all just have to remember to be understanding and patient regarding the time it takes. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Hummingbird

[lunaticfringe]

49 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

Well I mean that goes for any aircraft, so I think we should strive to match the charts precisely, as it's by far the most accurate source we have and it's what is done for the other modules; Also esp. since it can be done, as we see at M 0.62 where we're spot on at 6.5 G.

If we don't conform to some sort of std., the aircraft won't compare accuraretly with each other in the sim. 

You've already disproven your first contention by the second with the overperforming F-15C in this very conversation.  Every aircraft in DCS has envelope holes; that said, the Tomcat has been closer to the numbers during it's release than pretty much every other DCS aircraft- even when it was missing nearly 1.0G in the sub-400 region.

That is not to say that accuracy isn't the goal, or that the F-14 is inferior to modelling of other aircraft; it's not- it never has been; the heart of the envelope has always been at or better in proximity to the charts against any other module in DCS.  That said, chasing one or two tenths of a G because of a 1.5 DPS rate difference on the absolute bleeding edge of performance isn't a chase that will pay dividends for the overwhelming majority of people who use the module for the reason you suspect- because they're going to overshoot or undershoot that value over the course of an engagement from one moment to the next.  

You'll recall Mugs'  comment on the subject of slide rules and ass-kicking.  

[Baz000]

Honestly guys, I know you like using those scripts to test but realistically if i'm in the pit flying the thing it is damn hard to see how many Gs i'm pulling in DCS while i'm trying to stay padlocked on a MiG in my chili... At best I can glance at the AOA tape and go by my feedback cues and Jester yelling and hooping and hollering in the back. The G meter is not mounted in the best place in the cockpit.

I think part of this, you need to maintain some perspective to what the end goal ought to be.

 

Let me say this tho, I appreciate that we have people like hummingbird and others tho have such zeal to hunt down the various data points and make sure the DCS version of this plane pays homage to the real McCoy that right now you can only fly in Iran. But most of all, I appreciate that we can sit here and discuss and debate and learn new things... Sometimes we take such for granted without the slightest thought.  

Edited November 5, 2021 by Baz000

[Hummingbird]

55 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

You've already disproven your first contention by the second with the overperforming F-15C in this very conversation.  Every aircraft in DCS has envelope holes; that said, the Tomcat has been closer to the numbers during it's release than pretty much every other DCS aircraft- even when it was missing nearly 1.0G in the sub-400 region.

Sometimes parts of a FM break, it happens, which I am totally understanding of. The F15 FM used to be spot on, some thing(s) broke (E.g. no stores drag atm, but there used to be, and so on), it will be fixed eventually. We see it happen all the time, and it's not a big deal when the devs make sure to correct it. And honestly I like that there are people who care and take notice of discrepancies in the FMs, it's what ensures we get to fly the most accurately performing and behaving representations of these aircraft as possible = the very reason I'm into flightsims. 

 

Also I'm over the other FMs like a hawk just the same, hence you'll see me posting regarding any discrepancies I find there as well (F15, F16, AV8B, Mirage etc etc..the list is long) And I agree the F14 FM has always been great, esp. in terms of feel, and mostly also in terms of performance. Now it's getting real close, we just need a little more tuning near the peak performance area, and FC is working on it, so all is good. 

 

 

[Victory205]

It’s a waste of time to continually explain what a recipient can’t grasp due to a lack of physics, math and basic common sense. I call it being “stuck on stupid”, a borrowed phrase, where someone spends intense energy on something that is of no consequence. There is no way to get someone off of their obsession. If it brings them enjoyment, that’s fine, but perspective is always in order, as some of you have shown.

Individual airplanes also have different G capabilities due to load out, fairing alignments, trim drag, control and flap rigging, total engine thrust due to engine trim and age.  It’s not a digital world, everything has a range of specifications that are acceptable. 


A little anecdote for your edification-

We had an A4 that was barely making the required takeoff EPR check. It was underperforming, so it was relegated to basic FAM and instrument flights. I flew it with a student out to El Centro to deliver parts to a weapons detachment, getting a couple of RI hops on the student in the process. The thing was a dog, barely climbed to the mid thirties. Throttle wide assed open to make cruise Mach, but we had two drops and a blivet for the parts, it wasn’t surprising that it wasn’t exactly screaming.

We ferried it back to Tinker AFB in OKC after delivering the parts, grabbing a famous “Tinker Burger” back in the maintenance hangar canteen. Since we didn’t have a ladder on XC’s, we shinnied down the refueling probe to the wing, and went aft, hopping down using the starboard fuel tank as a step. As I went down the right side of the fuselage, I noticed that the side of the aircraft was abnormally hot. Couldn’t see anything using the inspection doors, but I checked again when we landed back at home plate and found it warm again, so I showed the guys where it was located and wrote it up.

Maintenance ended up pulling the tail to access the full engine. Turns out, there was a 4” by 4” hole in the compressor section where the case had broken at an accessory mounting angle. The Pratt motor and self installed it’s own mid compression bypass.

[Hummingbird]

Stupid and obsessed, ouch, that's rough. 

 

[Cab]

3 hours ago, Victory205 said:

It’s a waste of time to continually explain what a recipient can’t grasp due to a lack of physics, math and basic common sense. I call it being “stuck on stupid”, a borrowed phrase, where someone spends intense energy on something that is of no consequence. There is no way to get someone off of their obsession. If it brings them enjoyment, that’s fine, but perspective is always in order, as some of you have shown.

This brought to mind the late, great Jeff Cooper’s phrase, “Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments”, the original PII.

[draconus]

5 hours ago, Victory205 said:

Individual airplanes also have different G capabilities due to load out, fairing alignments, trim drag, control and flap rigging, total engine thrust due to engine trim and age.  It’s not a digital world, everything has a range of specifications that are acceptable.

We understand that but it's not a reason to not seek accuracy. We have the charts and they are the best data we have to base the FM on, at least regarding the numbers. We don't have data on how far away from the charts were other aircraft or median of all F-14 performance.

FC once told about 5% as an acceptable error and we're fine if we'll eventually land with FM numbers within that range.

We've been informed that the FM is not yet done and to not bother with testing right now, but the Hummingbird did anyway and shared just to show where it's at currently (thx, appreciated) - just that. What others do with it it's their choice. We all wait patiently toward the updates.

[Baz000]

Now, I wanna know what made a Tinker Burger so famous and I'm craving one gosh darn it... It could be the worst burger in the world but now I'm intrigued.

Man, imagine if you didn't touch your hand there because they rolled out the red carpet and had ladders for you guys... If I had shoulder straps on my chair I would have been hanging in suspense reading that story, and it wasn't even a salty sea story!

Oh and how you wove so slick like a Rumplestiltskin in a flight suit a part of our theoretical discussion into it... Was genius! Where you stated the thing was a dog, oh you sly devil, you! I saw what you did there.

We need like a pinned "Victory's corner" or something where we can read about your anecdotal experiences in the F-14 and in aviation.

Dammit now I'm craving a burger, plenty of carrots on the rabbit farm but no burgers.

It would be crazy if some day DCS could simulate airframe wear and tear and abuse and aging, etc so that when 2 aircraft fly together in a trimmed state they are not in actual identical trim inputs by the pilots.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Baz000

[Victory205]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

We understand that but it's not a reason to not seek accuracy. We have the charts and they are the best data we have to base the FM on, at least regarding the numbers. We don't have data on how far away from the charts were other aircraft or median of all F-14 performance.

FC once told about 5% as an acceptable error and we're fine if we'll eventually land with FM numbers within that range.

We've been informed that the FM is not yet done and to not bother with testing right now, but the Hummingbird did anyway and shared just to show where it's at currently (thx, appreciated) - just that. What others do with it it's their choice. We all wait patiently toward the updates.

For those who are interested in development-

We’re all extremely fortunate that HB engineers have the mindset to continue to work to get it right. I’d have difficulty sleeping at night with what I alone have put Fat Creason, callsign “Boogeyman” through in terms of handling. 

Hummingdude is using estimated charts drawn with crayon, and demanding precision as if they were laser etched by an aircraft flown by a computer “script”. Just look at Ps-0 line on the H-M chart, does it look like it’s a precise depiction of aircraft performance? Do you actually believe that the squiggles highlighted in red depict anomalies in aircraft performance, or did the draftsman’s hand slip? Why aren’t the aberrations present on the EM charts?

The SAC charts are general and based on estimated engine performance, yet a couple of you act like you found the Dead Sea Scrolls. What engines, before or after the TF30 was detuned? What’s the stall speed based on? The aircraft doesn’t exhibit stall break. The climb numbers are bizarrely overstated with precision that isn’t measurable. It bizarre that what is essentially a marketing brochure type of information is “defended”.

It’s being stuck on stupid, which that doesn’t reference being stupid, it references continuing to ignore explanations by professionals who actually obtain and reduce the data. 

What explains an obstinate refusal to simply match the parameters of the EM charts, by testing at a configuration and altitude shown on the chart? What in the name of Leroy Grumman is stopping you from flying a level turn at 5000 MSL with 4x4 at the appropriate weight?

What explains all of the drama at this point, when we know that the acceleration performance isn’t finished? 

But what do I know, I just flew the airplane.

[Victory205]

5 hours ago, Cab said:

This brought to mind the late, great Jeff Cooper’s phrase, “Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments”, the original PII.

Cooper was a brilliant thinker and speaker. He had a manner of distilling information into useful rules of thumb. The color codes and Four Laws are a great example.

It’s a shame that he’s gone, his observations on present times would have been epic. Kids attempting to cancel him for some of his views would have shown the world what to do when a mob tries to ruin a person.

 

1 hour ago, Baz000 said:

Now, I wanna know what made a Tinker Burger so famous and I'm craving one gosh darn it... It could be the worst burger in the world but now I'm intrigued.

Man, imagine if you didn't touch your hand there because they rolled out the red carpet and had ladders for you guys... If I had shoulder straps on my chair I would have been hanging in suspense reading that story, and it wasn't even a salty sea story!

Oh and how you wove so slick like a Rumplestiltskin in a flight suit a part of our theoretical discussion into it... Was genius! Where you stated the thing was a dog, oh you sly devil, you! I saw what you did there.

We need like a pinned "Victory's corner" or something where we can read about your anecdotal experiences in the F-14 and in aviation.

Dammit now I'm craving a burger, plenty of carrots on the rabbit farm but no burgers.

It would be crazy if some day DCS could simulate airframe wear and tear and abuse and aging, etc so that when 2 aircraft fly together in a trimmed state they are not in actual identical trim inputs by the pilots.

 

Tinker Burgers were world renown. In their heyday, they were about eight inches in diameter.

I am not interested whatsoever in being any sort of “celebrity” that we have seen develop over the past decade or so due to social media. Regular, run of the mill guys are self promoting on social media to make a few bucks, some of it is interesting, a lot is rehashing of things that we have all known about or heard for literally decades. Nothing wrong with that, it helps preserve the history and some funny events, but everyone has stories.

Anecdotes are just part of the journey, and does not construe some sort of exalted status, especially considering the massive team effort that it took to make it all happen. I’d like to see venues like the Tomcast podcast bring on maintenance troops, cat and arresting gear crew and officers, Air Bosses and so forth to talk about where the real work gets done, and the challenges inherent in the profession.

[Cab]

18 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

Cooper was a brilliant thinker and speaker. He had a manner of distilling information into useful rules of thumb. The color codes and Four Laws are a great example.

It’s a shame that he’s gone, his observations on present times would have been epic. Kids attempting to cancel him for some of his views would have shown the world what to do when a mob tries to ruin a person.

I couldn't agree more. Plus, he knew how to turn a phrase to catch your attention.

In fact, I think it's time to go back and re-read his archived Gunsite Gossip newsletters just for fun.

[cheezit]

16 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

What engines, before or after the TF30 was detuned?

Is there anywhere I can read up on what this consisted of?  Seemingly every pilot that flew the A and talks about it has mentioned the TF30 being detuned at some point, but when I look at the testimony in congressional hearings where modifications to the TF30 were discussed I can't find anything about it (plenty of stuff about other changes to improve reliability and service life).  The earliest documents I can find appear to show uninstalled static SL thrust of 20,900 lbs in max A/B and installed static SL thrust of 17,000 lbs in max A/B for the TF30-P412, and later documents show the same numbers for the TF30-P414A.  There's a real paucity of documentation of installed thrust at any other altitudes and airspeeds, so if the detuning affected operation at normal operating altitudes and airspeeds while leaving static SL thrust more or less unchanged it's invisible to a civilian observer.

[TLTeo]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

FC once told about 5% as an acceptable error and we're fine if we'll eventually land with FM numbers within that range.

Quick reminder that 0.96*5 = 4.8 - so assuming (optimistically) that these new tests are super accurate and exactly representative of the RL tests they are being compared to, the FM is already within that 5% window. Test away all you want, but also please appreciate that we're talking about extremely minor differences already.

[Hummingbird]

1 hour ago, Victory205 said:

What in the name of Leroy Grumman is stopping you from flying a level turn at 5000 MSL with 4x4 at the appropriate weight? 

Nothing... 

On 10/21/2021 at 6:28 AM, Hummingbird said:

" Credit where credit is due, at 5 kft they got it close:

5,000 ft ICAO std. day
M 0.4 (260 KTAS) = 3.50 G vs 3.50 G in manual (spot on)
M 0.5 (334 KTAS) = 4.65 G vs 4.75 G in manual (-0.1 G off)
M 0.6 (389 KTAS) = 5.60 G vs 5.60 G in manual (spot on)
M 0.7 (454 KTAS) =  6.30 G vs 6.40 G in manual ( -0.1 G off) "

 

Did you hear me mention 5kft much after that? No, because I find the above accurate enough. 

 

TLDR; I only concentrate on areas that don't match the charts within consequential margins. 

Quote

What explains all of the drama at this point, when we know that the acceleration performance isn’t finished? 

With all due respect, nothing stirs up drama like ad hominem attacks.. 

 

Meanwhile I think, anyone who  takes the time to read through the posts will see that I've been respectful, mostly praiseful infact, of HB's work the whole way through. I have at no point been incentivising drama or even critisized HB. 

 

But what'ever floats your boat, Im not out here to convince you of anything. I do find it a shame the proper tone couldn't be maintained however.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Katj]

Hey Victory, speaking of tuned engines, did you ever fly this jet?
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/f-14-questions-answered-ask-away.191767/post-3882876

I say P7 engine option or riot!

[SgtPappy]

12 hours ago, Baz000 said:

Honestly guys, I know you like using those scripts to test but realistically if i'm in the pit flying the thing it is damn hard to see how many Gs i'm pulling in DCS while i'm trying to stay padlocked on a MiG in my chili... At best I can glance at the AOA tape and go by my feedback cues and Jester yelling and hooping and hollering in the back. The G meter is not mounted in the best place in the cockpit.

I think part of this, you need to maintain some perspective to what the end goal ought to be.

Let me say this tho, I appreciate that we have people like hummingbird and others tho have such zeal to hunt down the various data points and make sure the DCS version of this plane pays homage to the real McCoy that right now you can only fly in Iran. But most of all, I appreciate that we can sit here and discuss and debate and learn new things... Sometimes we take such for granted without the slightest thought.  

 

I agree, Baz. I think there are uses for people obsessed with the mathematical programming of what is in truth a simulated aircraft. If others don't share that obsession then that's fine. I don't see the need for insults on this forum.

However, I believe the argument now is that "it's ok to focus on these numbers but also please just understand the perspective that these charts are estimates and the ~5% error we are getting is actually the best we can do practically. If you find spot on performance, that's most likely a coincidence as any data set oscillating about the goal value is likely to hit that goal value somewhere and expecting the data to be exact everywhere just isn't possible. Avoid the use of statements like "these numbers should be here" when the charts themselves are estimates." Do I have that right?  I think we can treat each other more respectfully and still get the point across. Being tired of explaining something to someone who is actually being polite is no excuse to then call them stupid, IMO. Perhaps you can tell, it's my unhealthy obsession with trying to get everyone to get along - there are so few of us in this niche

 

1 hour ago, cheezit said:

Is there anywhere I can read up on what this consisted of?  Seemingly every pilot that flew the A and talks about it has mentioned the TF30 being detuned at some point, but when I look at the testimony in congressional hearings where modifications to the TF30 were discussed I can't find anything about it (plenty of stuff about other changes to improve reliability and service life).  The earliest documents I can find appear to show uninstalled static SL thrust of 20,900 lbs in max A/B and installed static SL thrust of 17,000 lbs in max A/B for the TF30-P412, and later documents show the same numbers for the TF30-P414A.  There's a real paucity of documentation of installed thrust at any other altitudes and airspeeds, so if the detuning affected operation at normal operating altitudes and airspeeds while leaving static SL thrust more or less unchanged it's invisible to a civilian observer.

Yea, Quid did an excellent post here on their sources of TF30 data: 

It sounds like the pilots may have been told about the detuning at some point and the myth stuck - that is if they are referencing the 20,900 lbf vs the 17,700 lbf figures. Maybe there is another detuning that we are not aware of. @Victory205, anything you can share about this.. is it a myth/misunderstanding/misremembered event or is there more to the story?

Edited November 5, 2021 by SgtPappy

[Victory205]

1 hour ago, Cab said:

I couldn't agree more. Plus, he knew how to turn a phrase to catch your attention.

In fact, I think it's time to go back and re-read his archived Gunsite Gossip newsletters just for fun.

 

[Victory205]

7 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

It sounds like the pilots may have been told about the detuning at some point and the myth stuck - that is if they are referencing the 20,900 lbf vs the 17,700 lbf figures. Maybe there is another detuning that we are not aware of. @Victory205, anything you can share about this.. is it a myth/misunderstanding/misremembered event or is there more to the story?

Remember gang, “stuck on stupid” doesn’t imply a lack of mental facility, it means focused on the wrong thing, especially trivial items that aren’t germane to the real problem. Fiddling with the radio when you’re about to fly into a mountain. We all do it. 

If Hummingbird would just get his arse up to 5000 feet with 4x4 at the test weight (you do understand that the 6.5G limit is associated with a weight limit), he’d be a great asset. I think he’s afraid of heights.

The detuning thing continues to be obscure. The initial cadre in the 124 RAG and VF1 and 2 had massive issues with fan blades coming off and cutting fuel lines and cells. They were grounded from time to time until a containment could be designed and put around the engine casing to prevent it. Somewhere in that time frame, the engine thrust was reduced as an adjunct of changing fuel control behavior to prevent stalls. When or exactly what that entail was never articulated to us.

The difference between installed thrust, ram effect, mid compression bypass losses vs the absolute thrust delta remains somewhat murky. In the end, the pilot goes up and maneuvers to get a feel for what the aircraft will do, what works, and what doesn’t. The focus on determining precise thrust numbers that you see from enthusiasts wasn’t a thing. 

Just to reiterate. We had very few issues with engine stalls. I canvassed my squadron buds and the hours between stalls averaged ~1600 hrs per pilot. We learned how to manage the throttles. 

The GE engines were the real answer, and they had problems too.
 

[Baz000]

1 hour ago, Victory205 said:

Cooper was a brilliant thinker and speaker. He had a manner of distilling information into useful rules of thumb. The color codes and Four Laws are a great example.

It’s a shame that he’s gone, his observations on present times would have been epic. Kids attempting to cancel him for some of his views would have shown the world what to do when a mob tries to ruin a person.

 

Tinker Burgers were world renown. In their heyday, they were about eight inches in diameter.

I am not interested whatsoever in being any sort of “celebrity” that we have seen develop over the past decade or so due to social media. Regular, run of the mill guys are self promoting on social media to make a few bucks, some of it is interesting, a lot is rehashing of things that we have all known about or heard for literally decades. Nothing wrong with that, it helps preserve the history and some funny events, but everyone has stories.

Anecdotes are just part of the journey, and does not construe some sort of exalted status, especially considering the massive team effort that it took to make it all happen. I’d like to see venues like the Tomcast podcast bring on maintenance troops, cat and arresting gear crew and officers, Air Bosses and so forth to talk about where the real work gets done, and the challenges inherent in the profession.

I never heard of this Cooper fella but now I'm interested to learn about him, I take it he musta been like a USN version of a Boyd and his OODA loop. The only other Cooper I heard of is B.D. Cooper but they never found him or the money lol.

See, that is also a really big reason why I like conversing with you. When I was new to all this DCS stuff and this whole aviation world, I used to... and I think quite shamefully, put pilots up on a pedestal. And in particular, especially fighter pilots... I've known a few Navy aviators over the years but they flew P-3s or were commissioned flight crew on board P-3s. It was like you guys were flying chariots of the gods to me, as tho I would go blind if I were to make direct eye contact haha.

Gone are those days, of being so "starstruck" as time marched on. Now, these days I just look at you guys as regular Joe's who just had an extraordinary opportunity in your lives. After all, we are all human beings and are built from the same stuff.

So, thank you for not being a pretentious fighter puke attention diva, I've seen enough of those both on and off of here.

[SgtPappy]

14 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

Remember gang, “stuck on stupid” doesn’t imply a lack of mental facility, it means focused on the wrong thing, especially trivial items that aren’t germane to the real problem. Fiddling with the radio when you’re about to fly into a mountain. We all do it. 

If Hummingbird would just get his arse up to 5000 feet with 4x4 at the test weight (you do understand that the 6.5G limit is associated with a weight limit), he’d be a great asset. I think he’s afraid of heights.

The detuning thing continues to be obscure. The initial cadre in the 124 RAG and VF1 and 2 had massive issues with fan blades coming off and cutting fuel lines and cells. They were grounded from time to time until a containment could be designed and put around the engine casing to prevent it. Somewhere in that time frame, the engine thrust was reduced as an adjunct of changing fuel control behavior to prevent stalls. When or exactly what that entail was never articulated to us.

The difference between installed thrust, ram effect, mid compression bypass losses vs the absolute thrust delta remains somewhat murky. In the end, the pilot goes up and maneuvers to get a feel for what the aircraft will do, what works, and what doesn’t. The focus on determining precise thrust numbers that you see from enthusiasts wasn’t a thing. 

Just to reiterate. We had very few issues with engine stalls. I canvassed my squadron buds and the hours between stalls averaged ~1600 hrs per pilot. We learned how to manage the throttles. 

The GE engines were the real answer, and they had problems too.
 

Ok I'm terrible with this new forum's quoting system so I'll figure out how to break it up later lol. Thanks for the info, as I figured, the thrust values aren't actually that pertinent to the crew. During one of the latest Tomcast episodes, one of the first VF-1 guys says how their planes had crazy amounts of power and those were detuned - I'm thinking the thrust output from the TF30s in those VERY early days is not a number we have floating around. And it makes me super glad to hear that really well-trained pilots could manage compressor stalls. 

In the game, I have issues primarily when I'm refueling up high and slow and the tanker refuses to speed up, then its wash stalls one of my engines. Have you ever experienced that situation in real life? If so, how did you mitigate it? Can you tell the guy to go faster?? 

 

1 hour ago, Hummingbird said:

Nothing... 

On 10/21/2021 at 6:28 AM, Hummingbird said:

" Credit where credit is due, at 5 kft they got it close:

5,000 ft ICAO std. day
M 0.4 (260 KTAS) = 3.50 G vs 3.50 G in manual (spot on)
M 0.5 (334 KTAS) = 4.65 G vs 4.75 G in manual (-0.1 G off)
M 0.6 (389 KTAS) = 5.60 G vs 5.60 G in manual (spot on)
M 0.7 (454 KTAS) =  6.30 G vs 6.40 G in manual ( -0.1 G off) "

 

Hummingbird did do the 5 kft tests, however. I would know, I was flying with him one of those nights!  See his stuff above. When I see the info below, I take it as "hey here's what I tested, this is what the plots say" and that's it. I believe we've all learned that the plots are estimates, and are general and that there's only so much error that can be eliminated. I think Hummingbird understood that because he hasn't really mentioned the 5 kft data since he understand the 0.1 G difference is a non-issue. We're all getting to a mutual understanding there together! 

 

[Victory205]

How do I say this? Some of the pilots that are semi-worshipped on social media (not just the military guys) are in reality, well, I better not say it. Like Okie said, “Would I let him date my daughter? NO!” applies more broadly than you might thing. Some have fouled up their lives so badly that they’re on Youtube trying to make enough money to keep the lights on. It’s a same, because some are fantastic people- Bio Baranek, David Parsons, great guys who won’t embellish and don’t self promote or fleece people. They are simply interested in the profession.

All of this “fighter pilot” worship began with the advent of social media monetization, dovetailing from “that Movie”. It will be interesting to see if Top Gun Part Deux intensifies it. Things like veteran’s discounts are relatively new. We didn’t have any of that when I was on active duty, I was astounded to learn that after thirty odd years, I suddenly qualify for generous discounts at Lowe’s, AT&T, Apple, etc.

I knew from playing football, that we were just passing through. The fans and alums would be fawning over the next set of juvenile delinquents as soon as we left. Same with Navy, same with any profession. You are just passing through, to be replaced by someone who will eventually do your job better than you did.

Walk into my home, and you’d be hard pressed to know what I did for a living. No “I love me wall” like you see from the YouTubers, but a lot of books!

Switching subjects, you have the right idea about practicing flying in the landing configuration, feeling out the aircraft, trying to understand how it responds. When we get the final numbers sorted, we’ll talk about how to fly the CQ pattern more. It’s pretty dialed in. I was initially disappointed that our changes didn’t make it in last time, but I realize that it’s provided more time to dial it in even better.

Flying a jet really is an instrument task, it requires a light touch and your full attention, but it isn’t difficult. There is a reason Navy pilots get their instrument ratings before going into FAM and the rest of the training syllabus.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Victory205

[Victory205]

6 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

Ok I'm terrible with this new forum's quoting system so I'll figure out how to break it up later lol. Thanks for the info, as I figured, the thrust values aren't actually that pertinent to the crew. During one of the latest Tomcast episodes, one of the first VF-1 guys says how their planes had crazy amounts of power and those were detuned - I'm thinking the thrust output from the TF30s in those VERY early days is not a number we have floating around. And it makes me super glad to hear that really well-trained pilots could manage compressor stalls. 

In the game, I have issues primarily when I'm refueling up high and slow and the tanker refuses to speed up, then its wash stalls one of my engines. Have you ever experienced that situation in real life? If so, how did you mitigate it? Can you tell the guy to go faster?? 

Indeed, the quote system drives us all nuts.

Standard tanking speed was 250 knots using organic assets. The KC10 and 135 would typically be at 280 KIAS, while C130’s were at 220-230 usually. Engine stall in wake turbulence wasn’t an issue. It suddenly became a thing after “Top Gun the Movie™ “ was released in 1986. I remember that all of a sudden, my RIO was worried about it.

250 was a sweet spot, that’s what I set up the S3 at while testing drag and throttle response during tanking. It didn’t waste a lot of fuel, plenty of maneuver authority and engine response. You could move in and stop precisely without too much coast. I generally moved the wings aft a couple of clicks, which ended up being around 35 degrees. Whatever works for you. Moving the wings aft increases the deck angle and reduces pitch response slightly. All the way to Bomb is more appropriate to the faster speeds of the USAF tankers, it also extended glove vanes which made the aircraft a little pitchy at those subsonic speeds. I didn’t use Bomb mode.

Oh crap, I inadvertently mentioned Glove Vanes…

[TLTeo]

1 hour ago, Victory205 said:

I canvassed my squadron buds and the hours between stalls averaged ~1600 hrs per pilot

Most excellent, I've been flying the -A after a long break and I think I'm getting one every few hours I blame it on the lack of glove vanes.