Jump to content

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


IronMike

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

So excited! Can't wait. The latest patch too was a lot of fun - being able to use the AIM-54 and AIM-7 online for a bit was great.

 

Too bad the TF30 won't make it in Oct since everyone knows the A is the real star heheh but very glad that it will be worked on with quality in mind over schedule. Keep it up! And of course thank you!

 

Glad to hear the missiles made a comeback for you guys, Pappy! Thank you for your kind words, it is our pleasure of course. 🙂

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am i wrong or in the attached video Snort is performing an instant turn rate of 40 deg/sec or more? Please look in slow motion starting from 0:00:06 to 0:00:09, i think it's really incredible and there is no NATOPS chart who report this performance.

 


Edited by maxsin72
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impressive for sure.

 

EDIT: After further review that is more like 23-25 DPS INST, which is roughly mathching the charts (estimated for SL). If anything it's 30 at most. We also dont know the DA for that video and it does look quite humid. 


Edited by Airhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't confuse turn with nose position.  Take 20-30 degrees off the nose position when the vapes are heavy to get an idea of the turn.  Turn rate is about the flight path vector not the nose position with adds AoA.  Just like the F-35 demo pulling the nose 135deg in as little as 3 sec.  50deg of that is AoA.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done an experiment merging the normal clip with reversed clip and, in 10 sec, i can see an almost 360 deg turn, maybe 340 deg: 340/10= 34 deg/sec, please see the attachment. But i have also to say that the highest instant turn rate is in the first 2 sec and i think it is more than 34 deg/sec.


Edited by maxsin72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

Looking at the video at 0,25 x speed, between sec. 6,5 and sec. 7,5 i think he turns more than 40 deg., maybe i'm wrong but i see that.

 

 

 

If I may ask , what is the point of this?

First off  , a video alone has so many unknown variables, like weather, temp, grossweight ,actual Gs pulled and so on , plus you can put in all the analysis

you want,  like spurts said, there is a difference between aoa and actual turn rate , which you cannot deduct accurately from a grainy video.

The FM will almost certainly not get changed based on this.


If it's however, just to show/share  that the F-14 is capable of some impressive maneuvres, ok  then, I agree with you and thanks for the video.

 

Regards,


Snappy


Edited by Snappy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Snappy said:

 

If I may ask , what is the point of this?

First off  , a video alone has so many unknown variables, like weather, temp, grossweight ,actual Gs pulled and so on , plus you can put in all the analysis

you want,  like spurts said, there is a difference between aoa and actual turn rate , which you cannot deduct accurately from a grainy video.

The FM will certainly not get improved based on this.


If it's however, just to show/share  that the F-14 is capable of some impressive maneuvres, ok  then, I agree with you and thanks for the video.

 

Regards,


Snappy

The point is, as you said, " that the F-14 is capable of some impressive maneuvres" and also that some of this performance are not on NATOPS charts.So, basing the FM only on NATOPS charts, is not completely realistic and could be limiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

The point is, as you said, " that the F-14 is capable of some impressive maneuvres" and also that some of this performance are not on NATOPS charts.So, basing the FM only on NATOPS charts, is not completely realistic and could be limiting.

I never said some of the performance is not on NATOPS charts, thats only your interpretation of things.

 

Even if it was , which I'm not convinced of at all, that video is not a  basis to build/change  the FM on.


Edited by Snappy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snappy said:

I never said some of the performance is not on NATOPS charts, thats only your interpretation of things.

 

Even if it was , which I'm not convinced of at all, thats not a  basis to build/change  the FM on.

 

i know perfectly what you said and i have put it between "", so don't  misunderstand me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@maxsin72

I have actually discussed this and analysed this video with a buddy who is a fast jet pilot and we both agree that this pretty much matches the available charts (best case being 5k feet, 53k lbs GW and 4x4 loadout), if you ignore the unknown environmental variables. It in fact is more or less 23-25 (if you really want to be generous 30 DPS if you go out of your way and consider that the aircraft is clean, has low fuel and the DA is low as well as air being humid, helping with thrust). Whether you like it or not, this is what professionals had to say about it who udnerstand nose position, rate and BFM geometry. It's up to you to think that this is more INST rate than it is and that is fine, you have no frame of reference and believe that, just be aware that people on here will disagree with that. If anything is certain is that Snort was a hell of a pilot and knew how to demo the Tomcat, often times also ignoring the 6.5 G limit. 


Edited by Airhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

@maxsin72

I have actually discussed this and analysed this video with a buddy who is a fast jet pilot and we both agree that this pretty much matches the available charts (best case being 5k feet, 53k lbs GW and 4x4 loadout), if you ignore the unknown environmental variables. It in fact is more or less 23-25 (if you really want to be generous 30 DPS if you go out of your way and consider that the aircraft is clean, has low fuel and the DA is low as well as air being humid, helping with thrust). Whether you like it or not, this is what professionals had to say about it who udnerstand nose position, rate and BFM geometry. It's up to you to think that this is more INST rate than it is and that is fine, you have no frame of reference and believe that, just be aware that people on here will disagree with that. If anything is certain is that Snort was a hell of a pilot and knew how to demo the Tomcat, often times also ignoring the 6.5 G limit. 

 

Thanks for your opinion. But i think there is another strange thing: i always thought that F14 has max inst turn rate with wings swept forward but Snort is doing that with wings completely swept back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, maxsin72 said:

Thanks for your opinion. But i think there is another strange thing: i always thought that F14 has max inst turn rate with wings swept forward but Snort is doing that with wings completely swept back.

 

That is a good point. Wings being swept back does indeed act differently aerodynamically speaking as it pretty much behaves like a delta wing at this point. Sadly there is no performance data with wings swept back (other than the one from flight tests which aren't anywhere public).Swept wings should technically also help with the wing loading and bending motion as the arm is simply shorter. One thing is for sure, with wings at 68 DEG you WILL bleed energy much faster at those speeds, resulting in a fast tightening turn radius and decreasing load factor, but more likely will also have more momentary lift at a higher AOA given the geometry. Nothing can be said for certain however without knowing the flow distribution or having any perf. data for that configuration really. But it is nontheless something one can consider when it comes to INST rates.  


Edited by Airhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

That is a good point. Wings being swept back does indeed act differently aerodynamically speaking as it pretty much behaves like a delta wing at this point. Sadly there is no performance data with wings swept back (other than the one from flight tests which aren't anywhere public).Swept wings should technically also help with the wing loading and bending motion as the arm is simply shorter. One thing is for sure, with wings at 68 DEG you WILL bleed energy much faster at those speeds, resulting in a fast tightening turn radius and decreasing load factor, but more likely will also have more momentary lift at a higher AOA given the geometry. Nothing can be said for certain however without knowing the flow distribution or having any perf. data for that configuration really. But it is nontheless something one can consider when it comes to INST rates.  

 

Perhaps SMEs could give us some more info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need for further info. It's in the aero data. With the wings back you can generate and sustain higher AoA. Nothing weird about it. And as @Airhuntersaid, you'll also generate higher drag, so you will decelerate faster, thus tighten your turn faster. Will you hang there indefinitely once you bleed yourself dry? Nope. But you can still do it if you set your mind and feet to it. 

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2021 at 11:51 AM, maxsin72 said:

So, basing the FM only on NATOPS charts, is not completely realistic and could be limiting.

 

It is not even remotely what we do. The basis is provided with charts and thousands upon thousands of NASA windtunnel calculations. On top of that sits the vast majority of FM tweaking due to SME feedback, means folks who actually flew the Tomcat with a truly impressive amount of flight hours in real life. One of them being the pilot with the 2nd highest amount of hours in the Tomcat altogether.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

 

It is not even remotely what we do. The basis is provided with charts and thousands upon thousands of NASA windtunnel calculations. On top of that sits the vast majority of FM tweaking due to SME feedback, means folks who actually flew the Tomcat with a truly impressive amount of flight hours in real life. One of them being the pilot with the 2nd highest amount of hours in the Tomcat altogether.

 

I just said the same thing, the reason i wrote that SME could give us more info is just because, thanks to their knowledge, we are able to know what is not on charts. And it would be really interesting what they know about the tomcat's capability shown i the video. 

23 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

No need for further info. It's in the aero data. With the wings back you can generate and sustain higher AoA. Nothing weird about it. And as @Airhuntersaid, you'll also generate higher drag, so you will decelerate faster, thus tighten your turn faster. Will you hang there indefinitely once you bleed yourself dry? Nope. But you can still do it if you set your mind and feet to it. 

In the video it is also possibile to see Snort using glove vanes.


Edited by maxsin72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maxsin72 said:

I just said the same thing, the reason i wrote that SME could give us more info is just because, thanks to their knowledge, we are able to know what is not on charts. And it would be really interesting what they know about the tomcat's capability shown i the video. 

In the video it is also possibile to see Snort using glove vanes.

 

the vanes were 100% automatic wernt they?

7700k @5ghz, 32gb 3200mhz ram, 2080ti, nvme drives, valve index vr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

 

In the video it is also possibile to see Snort using glove vanes.

 

I don't get it. Are you implying the glove vanes will generate enough lift to enable you to pull g's that you otherwise couldn't that slow? 

41 minutes ago, Katj said:
2 hours ago, eatthis said:
the vanes were 100% automatic wernt they?

They also extended when wing sweep was (manually) put to bomb mode.

Indeed. 

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

I don't get it. Are you implying the glove vanes will generate enough lift to enable you to pull g's that you otherwise couldn't that slow? 

Indeed. 

 

Yes, i have thought glove vanes could help to turn better with wings swept back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maxsin72 said:

 

Yes, i have thought glove vanes could help to turn better with wings swept back.

The contribution to the lift would be roughly proportional to the increase in lifting surface, which doesn't look like all that much to be honest. 

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contribution to the lift would be roughly proportional to the increase in lifting surface, which doesn't look like all that much to be honest. 
I think the largest effect is that they move the center of lift forwards, which lowers trim drag and of course increases responsiveness in pitch.

Of course they say that the effect was so small they didn't need them and inactivated them in the 90s. Nevertheless the super tomcat 21 proposal featured enlarged gloves that kind of resembles the original gloves with the vanes extended. Don't ask me how that affected stability with wings full forward.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

The contribution to the lift would be roughly proportional to the increase in lifting surface, which doesn't look like all that much to be honest. 

I think your assumption is wrong: also small surfaces at high speed generate strong lift and gloves vanes function was just that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...