locking wings forward for bfm

[eatthis]

what kind of sustained rate do you get by locking the wings forward and increasing speed to 400+? im not talking about using flaps and breaking the plane

[Spurts]

since Ps drops to zero at ~600kt, I'm going to say not much.  Don't worry so much about best STR like that.  15-20 AoA on the gauge will give you roughly best STR.  25-30 AoA gives a very tight turn circle and high pitch rate (going full nose down trim helps prevent AoA excursions past 30).  10 AoA lets you pick speed back up fairly well.  Getting the most out of the Tomcat means something should always be changing.

[illegal1984]

I agree that despite the flashy YouTube videos posted by others, I believe the practice is foolish because it reduces your ability to recover energy during a dogfight, which is a highly disadvantageous situation. In my opinion, the F-14's pitch authority can easily compensate for any perceived gain at speed, and it depends on the style of fighting one prefers. Dogfight servers can be enjoyable, but they are not the best for developing good habits in air combat maneuvers. Relying solely on high angle of attack maneuvers to use guns in combat can lead to certain death in a more realistic fight with heat-seeking missiles. However, if one chooses to engage in Air Quake-style gameplay, then the speed and position of the wings won't matter much, as both players will end up flying at a low altitude and speed.

[Panny]

People peddle that jamming the wings forward is better but never actually test it themselves. In truth the penalties for putting the wings forward will more likely punish you versus leaving it in auto.

This was a test I ran a few months ago, that shows only two instances - the F-14B at 400 knots at 10k feet, and the F-14A at 15k+ feet in which it benefits from the wings coming forward. 

However, it's a lot harder to return the wings to auto once you're no longer in a scenario that's favourable having the wings forward.

[fat creason]

The answer to this question and many more is coming in an update post soon...

[Hayrake YE-ZB]

9 hours ago, fat creason said:

The answer to this question and many more is coming in an update post soon...

Cool!

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Hayrake YE-ZB

[r4y30n]

im not talking about using flaps and breaking the plane

I mean, you kind of are…

Older variable sweep planes had to be strong enough to survive any achievable IAS with wings forward because they were manually controlled and had to account for pilot error, not to mention their sweep mechanisms were too slow to keep up with acceleration.

The Tomcat didn’t have as much of a weight penalty for the variable sweep because the mechanism was automatic and fast enough to keep up with the plane so the wings were designed to be only as strong as necessary for the sweep schedule. Putting it in manual forward should risk breaking the sweep system or bending the wings, though I don’t know how high that risk actually is.

[eatthis]

On 3/1/2023 at 3:40 PM, r4y30n said:

I mean, you kind of are…

Older variable sweep planes had to be strong enough to survive any achievable IAS with wings forward because they were manually controlled and had to account for pilot error, not to mention their sweep mechanisms were too slow to keep up with acceleration.

The Tomcat didn’t have as much of a weight penalty for the variable sweep because the mechanism was automatic and fast enough to keep up with the plane so the wings were designed to be only as strong as necessary for the sweep schedule. Putting it in manual forward should risk breaking the sweep system or bending the wings, though I don’t know how high that risk actually is.

what are you basing that opinion on?
iv no idea what the real life consequences are but in dcs you can do whatever you like within reason with the wings pinned forwards, itl be subsonic but youl break the ins and black out long before you break the wings if you dont YANK the stick too quickly

[lunaticfringe]

On 3/1/2023 at 10:40 AM, r4y30n said:

I mean, you kind of are…

Older variable sweep planes had to be strong enough to survive any achievable IAS with wings forward because they were manually controlled and had to account for pilot error, not to mention their sweep mechanisms were too slow to keep up with acceleration.

The Tomcat didn’t have as much of a weight penalty for the variable sweep because the mechanism was automatic and fast enough to keep up with the plane so the wings were designed to be only as strong as necessary for the sweep schedule. Putting it in manual forward should risk breaking the sweep system or bending the wings, though I don’t know how high that risk actually is.

The wings were engineered for a substantively higher CL Max (roughly 15% higher in Mach) and unrestricted G; this is indicated in the original sweep program when comparing the schedules side by side. The reprogramming to Ps Max doesn't get close to what the wings can withstand, even without the operational limitations in place.  

 

That said, any crazy being applied with the wings forward off schedule are being done for an ITR bump, rather than STR, because the schedule is in place to maintain available power; keeping the wings out or putting them out behind the curve invokes excess drag, and diminishes the jet's ability to maintain its state while turning, as exampled in the charts above.  

[r4y30n]

I thought I had read in one of the Grumman books that the wings weren’t built to handle the drag of being out at high speed, nothing to do with G loading, but maybe I’m misremembering.

[Voyager]

I believe one of the lead designers talks about it in this lecture: 

 

However I recall from an interview with one of the test pilots, when they were testing the plane, I believe they found that in high G, high AoA maneuvers, the wings just ended up stalling and transfered the highest loads to the lifting body portion. 

So basically they weren't designed for high speed high G loads, but it ultimately did not matter because during high speed, high G loads they stopped providing lift. 

 

I think it was discussed in Aircrew Interview #26 Kurt Schroeder on testing the F-14:

Also fun little note from the first lecture, apparently the Phoenix configuration was considered an "overload" config. 

[eatthis]

On 3/10/2023 at 5:44 PM, Voyager said:

I believe one of the lead designers talks about it in this lecture: 

 

However I recall from an interview with one of the test pilots, when they were testing the plane, I believe they found that in high G, high AoA maneuvers, the wings just ended up stalling and transfered the highest loads to the lifting body portion. 

So basically they weren't designed for high speed high G loads, but it ultimately did not matter because during high speed, high G loads they stopped providing lift. 

 

I think it was discussed in Aircrew Interview #26 Kurt Schroeder on testing the F-14:

Also fun little note from the first lecture, apparently the Phoenix configuration was considered an "overload" config. 

ah yes i think i remember a test pilot or somebody saying its basically impossible to break the wings because the lifitng body takes the load off them at stupid alpha or gs

[fat creason]

Have you read this yet? I discuss wing sweep and performance in the article.

https://heatblur.se/fmupdate/

Edited April 2, 2023 by fat creason

[Temetre]

Am 3.4.2023 um 00:10 schrieb fat creason:

Have you read this yet? I discuss wing sweep and performance in the article.

https://heatblur.se/fmupdate/

I dont think Ill ever fully understand the flight charachteristics, nor be good enough to push an aircraft to the F-14 to its limits, but I love being able to fly aircraft in Sims, and understand that im basically flying something that is so very close to the real thing in how it behaves. Props for the commitment and attention to detail.

Probably everything I know about how aircraft behave is from games. Stuff like DCS is quite educational.

[AngelAtTheTomb]

On 4/2/2023 at 2:29 PM, eatthis said:

ah yes i think i remember a test pilot or somebody saying its basically impossible to break the wings because the lifitng body takes the load off them at stupid alpha or gs

So...does this mean we can tone down the wing breaking some more? Because it's still very much possible.

[Temetre]

Afaik the main reason people on youtube might recommend manual wing sweep isnt about maximum turning speed, but about hiding your energy state from the enemy. Generally only recommended for experienced pilots that wanna be more min-maxy tho, not a general rule.

vor 10 Stunden schrieb AngelAtTheTomb:

So...does this mean we can tone down the wing breaking some more? Because it's still very much possible.

Ive recently tried pushing the aircraft, trying the alternate buffet, and my wings broke at 15-20G or so. And Ive actually found ways to get there.

Imo seems to be part of the challenge, you got so much control authority in the Tomcat, and the plane does whatever you tell it to, but that can be quite scary. The plane becomes very sensitive to inputs at high speeds. IRL you probably got more feel for the forces and need more weigth to lean into controls to reach those G-forces tho.

Funnily enough with the F-16 I sometimes have the opposite problem. When I get slow, the inputs become overly sensitive, and when I slow down in dogfights im suddenly sitting at 25 AoA at the edge of stalling, with the same inputs that seemed like a good turning speed at 420 knots xD 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Temetre

[captain_dalan]

6 hours ago, Temetre said:

Afaik the main reason people on youtube might recommend manual wing sweep isnt about maximum turning speed, but about hiding your energy state from the enemy. Generally only recommended for experienced pilots that wanna be more min-maxy tho, not a general rule.

 

 

At high altitudes, due to high mach numbers and low airspeeds, you can actually end up in rather unfavorable situations with decreased lift, and unwanted handling characteristics due to your wings being back. At lower altitudes though, you are just shooting yourself in the foot by preventing your wings from going back when they should. 

6 hours ago, Temetre said:

 

Ive recently tried pushing the aircraft, trying the alternate buffet, and my wings broke at 15-20G or so. And Ive actually found ways to get there.

 

 

The things is, in the real aircraft the stick has an artificial feel system that makes you pull 4-10lbs of force for each unit of g (if memory serves), depending on the situation. That would mean that in the actual plane, you could need 60-200pds of pull to get those g's. There's just no way you can do that by accident. Almost certainly not with a single arm elbow pull. In DCS there are no such barriers. 

[WarthogOsl]

FWIW, there was a recent conversation on the HB Discord about how the F-14 originally had selectable (via a switch near the throttle) wing sweep programs...one optimized for best L/D based on Mach number, and the other optimized for better turn performance.  For whatever reason, the Navy chose to eliminate the later and just keep the former, which is what we have now.  Anyway, it seemed like the deleted program had much more bias for the wings being forward, with full 68 degree sweep only happening at around Mach 1.2

[Temetre]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb captain_dalan:

At high altitudes, due to high mach numbers and low airspeeds, you can actually end up in rather unfavorable situations with decreased lift, and unwanted handling characteristics due to your wings being back. At lower altitudes though, you are just shooting yourself in the foot by preventing your wings from going back when they should. 

Ah, so it might make a difference at higher altitude? Interesting, tho its probably quite niche and difficult to keep track off. 

vor 18 Stunden schrieb captain_dalan:

The things is, in the real aircraft the stick has an artificial feel system that makes you pull 4-10lbs of force for each unit of g (if memory serves), depending on the situation. That would mean that in the actual plane, you could need 60-200pds of pull to get those g's. There's just no way you can do that by accident. Almost certainly not with a single arm elbow pull. In DCS there are no such barriers. 

Yeah, I think IRL the mistakes were usually up to ~12g, and the damage was more to engine or so. The airframe breaking at 15-20g seems pretty extreme, and speaks for the plane being quite sturdy. 

Its kinda funny, I suspect the F-14 is one of the very few planes that has enough power and control to get into situtaions like that by accident, without the FBW to protect you from the fallout.

Im still quite green with the F-14, but I think 20g incursions are still difficult to make. The more realistic "alternate buffet" seems to make it easier to over-G, I think I prefer the visually slightly exaggerated version. Gives at least some feel about how brutal the shake must be.

vor 12 Stunden schrieb WarthogOsl:

FWIW, there was a recent conversation on the HB Discord about how the F-14 originally had selectable (via a switch near the throttle) wing sweep programs...one optimized for best L/D based on Mach number, and the other optimized for better turn performance.  For whatever reason, the Navy chose to eliminate the later and just keep the former, which is what we have now.  Anyway, it seemed like the deleted program had much more bias for the wings being forward, with full 68 degree sweep only happening at around Mach 1.2

Dangit, USN getting into the way of fun and comfort :^)

Edited June 6, 2023 by Temetre

[draconus]

11 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Its kinda funny, I suspect the F-14 is one of the very few planes that has enough power and control to get into situtaions like that by accident, without the FBW to protect you from the fallout.

What's so funny? Almost all jets can break with enough speed and G, some have limiters (which can be turned off), some don't (ex. F-14A/B, F-15C).

[Temetre]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb draconus:

What's so funny? Almost all jets can break with enough speed and G, some have limiters (which can be turned off), some don't (ex. F-14A/B, F-15C).

Of course, but the F-14 has a combination of engine power, lift and control authority that you see in very few, and mostly more modern aircraft? The F-15C is probably not far off, if at all, but I think its better ('analogue') FBW system should be much more powerful and make it it harder to over-g, have controls become less sensitive at high speed for example. I assume the same is true for SU-27? The F-4E likely has a more primitive flight control system than the F-14, but also wouldnt get that easy into super high-g situations, because it doesnt got the power of an F-14.

Or am I just wrong about that? 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Temetre

[draconus]

10 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Of course, but the F-14 has a combination of engine power, lift and control authority that you see in very few, and mostly more modern aircraft? The F-15C is probably not far off, if at all, but I think its better ('analogue') FBW system should be much more powerful and make it it harder to over-g, have controls become less sensitive at high speed for example. I assume the same is true for SU-27? The F-4E likely has a more primitive flight control system than the F-14, but also wouldnt get that easy into super high-g situations, because it doesnt got the power of an F-14.

I don't get your excitement about power. F-4 has less powerful enignes but also less gross weight. B-52 has much more power - so what? Earth has enough 'power' to pull hard enough to speed up the aircraft, even without engines, and when you're panicly pulling the stick you'll break any airframe. It's just a matter of limiters.

About controls - whatever system is applied, FBW or mech links, there were always some counterweight 'feel' systems to go with it, just to save pilots from yanking the stick carelessly.

[Temetre]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb draconus:

I don't get your excitement about power. F-4 has less powerful enignes but also less gross weight. B-52 has much more power - so what? Earth has enough 'power' to pull hard enough to speed up the aircraft, even without engines, and when you're panicly pulling the stick you'll break any airframe. It's just a matter of limiters.

About controls - whatever system is applied, FBW or mech links, there were always some counterweight 'feel' systems to go with it, just to save pilots from yanking the stick carelessly.

Idk, I just ment that some aircraft are way easier to over-g than others. And that the F-14 mightve combined technical advances (in flight performance) but lagged behind in control logic (FBW, stability assist, etc) that could make it a more tricky to handle plane in some ways.

But thats just a tought from me in a very specific context, I dont wanna argue about it if I cant really convey what yi mean^^

[WarthogOsl]

7 hours ago, Temetre said:

Ah, so it might make a difference at higher altitude? Interesting, tho its probably quite niche and difficult to keep track off. 

That's my impression.  I've heard a few pilots talk about how the F-14 wasn't super great at high altitude maneuvering due to the wing sweep being based on Mach number.

[Temetre]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb WarthogOsl:

That's my impression.  I've heard a few pilots talk about how the F-14 wasn't super great at high altitude maneuvering due to the wing sweep being based on Mach number.

Oh really? I should look out for that, but the plane felt pretty good at high altitude imo. But maybe thats partially becuase im comparing it to an F-16.