Jump to content

Feedback Thread F-14 Tomcat - Update May 18th 2023


IronMike

Recommended Posts

Mach 2+ is a bit silly regardless, you're burning so much fuel to achieve that speed that you really need to be pointing in the direction of the airfield when you start your speed run.

  • Like 2

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Folks please do not share restricted documents here on the forum

thank you

Iran needs to sell Tom Cruse the rest of their Tomcats so we can stop treating a 50 year old airframe like a super weapon. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fat creason said:

Mach 2+ is a bit silly regardless

YOU DONT SAY THAT!

 

Besides at mach 2+ you can coast in from just about from any point in the map.. space shuttle re-entry style 


Edited by Delta59R

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 512 m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fat creason said:

Mach 2+ is a bit silly regardless, you're burning so much fuel to achieve that speed that you really need to be pointing in the direction of the airfield when you start your speed run.

More than that, it’s an unloaded number. You can bugout and trade altitude for airspeed and hit 2.x M to outrun a missile that wants to be your friend. Straight and level making that speed is a trick shot not normal operations. 
 

The Ps curve is about being able to turn hydrocarbons into Altitude, then trading that altitude back off to faster than straight and level speed.

4 minutes ago, Delta59R said:

YOU DONT SAY THAT!

 

Besides at mach 2+ you can coast in from just about from any point in the map.. space shuttle re-entry style 

 

The Tomcat is a hell of a glider. Forget to refuel when you re-arm once and you’ll find that out real quick. It likes about 150 KTS with the wings out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, fat creason said:

 

Seriously though, the DCS F-14A hits about 2.30. I think the numbers in the write-up didn't get updated, we'll fix it.

 

I respectfully think the A model (in sim) is still underpowered and here's why;

The data shows the A model capable of m2.15 @ 38kft, 4 sparrows, 4 sidewinders, full gun, @ 50% fuel (8000lbs). (53,873lbs) total

One thing to consider is burn time down to 50% fuel from what you have at the start of the run. 

I loaded up as above and flew up to 38kft to start my run as efficiently as I could. (Presumably as a test pilot would)

By the time I got to 38000 I had about 14000lbs of fuel left to start my run down to 50% (8000lbs).

I started the run at around 450kn/M0.78

At the 50% fuel mark I was only at 1092kn/M1.903 (Thats 146 knots under real world testing)

With only 2000lbs fuel left I was able to get it to 1250kn/M2.18 (Thats 6000lbs lighter than real world test with presumably many more tens of seconds of burn time)

 

I did some testing clean at 38kft too, results below.

Clean, but run same as above, at the 50% (8000lb) fuel mark I was at 1271kn/m2.215 (which is only 36knots above real-world testing when its loaded down like a friken missile truck)

I continued all the way down to only 2000 lbs of fuel left and only got it up to 1305kn/m2.274

 

After thinking about it some more, I wouldn't be surprised if the A model could do m2.3 clean @ 50% fuel and even m2.34 @ joker fuel in RL.

 


Edited by Delta59R

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 512 m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Delta59R said:

I loaded up as above and flew up to 38kft to start my run as efficiently as I could. (Presumably as a test pilot would)

 

 

 

And this was your error.  By the book a Deck Launched Intercept for that loadout is a ~0.9M climb to 30,000ft.  Level off and accelerate to 1.4M.  Climb at 1.4M to altitude.  The Ps through the transonic region is too low to effectively accelerate there so you have to either accelerate lower in level flight or climb higher and dive through that speed region.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spurts said:

And this was your error.  By the book a Deck Launched Intercept for that loadout is a ~0.9M climb to 30,000ft.  Level off and accelerate to 1.4M.  Climb at 1.4M to altitude.  The Ps through the transonic region is too low to effectively accelerate there so you have to either accelerate lower in level flight or climb higher and dive through that speed region.

I'll give it a try! I'm guessing this would be full AB all the way from launch?


Edited by Delta59R

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 512 m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Delta59R said:

I'm guessing this would be full AB all the way from launch?

No. You take off, accelerate and control the throttles pitch to keep M0.9.


Edited by draconus

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, draconus said:

No. You take off, accelerate and control the throttles to keep M0.9.

Wouldn't you just mitigate your speed with climb rate?

If no, what is the climb rate you are to maintain while going to 30kft?

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 512 m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Delta59R said:

Wouldn't you just mitigate your speed with climb rate?

Oh, yes, sorry, of course you control the pitch to keep the speed of M0.9.

  • Like 1

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Delta59R said:

I respectfully think the A model (in sim) is still underpowered

I respectfully have to disagree. The model is very unlikely to change at this point unless some highly compelling evidence is provided. Your testing results and methodology do not meet that criteria. Any tests being hand-flown are not really acceptable as the margin for error is very high and lack of repeatability makes them somewhat useless. It seems you still haven't read this, particularly the section about testing: https://heatblur.se/fmupdate/.  If you want to see how fast the plane can go at 50% fuel, why don't you just set fuel to 50% and turn on unlimited fuel?


Edited by fat creason
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fat creason said:

 If you want to see how fast the plane can go at 50% fuel, why don't you just set fuel to 50% and turn on unlimited fuel?

That doesn't seem very realistic.

The real world test results are at the 50% fuel mark. 

Presumably (in real life) you have to start the test at more fuel and burn down to the 50% mark and log the results. No?

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 512 m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is not how those particular charts work. The intent of those charts is to show the ESTIMATED 1G envelope at a fixed gross weight and drag config. You're confusing top speed and acceleration. Far more extensive testing using more advanced techniques and proper methodology has already been completed. Anyways, good luck with your tests, the model is not going to change so feel free to run them for your personal enjoyment. There's nothing else to add to this discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Edited by fat creason
  • Like 5

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fat creason said:

No, that is not how those particular charts work. The intent of those charts is to show the ESTIMATED 1G envelope at a fixed gross weight and drag config.

 

Just asking your opinion here, Is there anyway they could have matched those estimates in a real world test or even us sim pilots (in sim) keeping things as realistic as possible?


Edited by Delta59R

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 512 m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Delta59R said:

Just asking your opinion here, Is there anyway they could have matched those estimates in a real world test or even us sim pilots (in sim) keeping things as realistic as possible?

 

Only momentarily if flown correct and at that exact fuel level. That's why you need a script to have any chance at really matching the charts in DCS. And even so those charts aren't calculated to be as exact as many people expect them to be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that would be borderline impossible to do in real life. Look at level accelerations for tests you can run in the sim and real life.


Edited by fat creason
  • Like 1

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

Only momentarily if flown correct and at that exact fuel level. That's why you need a script to have any chance at really matching the charts in DCS. And even so those charts aren't calculated to be as exact as many people expect them to be.

I've always wondered how exact those are.  Between publicizing performance and constant changing variables, I imagine a decent amount of estimates are in those charts.

  • Like 1

Former USN F/A-18E/F Avionics Tech @ VFA-103 & VFA-106
Former T-34C & T-44A/C Plane Captain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scotia said:

I've always wondered how exact those are.  Between publicizing performance and constant changing variables, I imagine a decent amount of estimates are in those charts.

Just to be clear I'm talking about the real world charts that we try to match in DCS. And yes, there'll ofc have been a lot of time and smart minds put into those but you also have to realise what they're for and how exact they need to be or can be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

41 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

Just to be clear I'm talking about the real world charts that we try to match in DCS. And yes, there'll ofc have been a lot of time and smart minds put into those but you also have to realise what they're for and how exact they need to be or can be.

It was my understanding that you were talking about the real world charts. I was as well.


Edited by Scotia
added second sentence
  • Like 1

Former USN F/A-18E/F Avionics Tech @ VFA-103 & VFA-106
Former T-34C & T-44A/C Plane Captain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, fat creason said:

No, that would be borderline impossible to do in real life. Look at level accelerations for tests you can run in the sim and real life.

 

So to be clear this chart really I just a hypothetical imaginary situation where weight/fuel/drag never changes and thrust is constant? (Akin to turning off fuel usage in the sim)?

  • Like 1

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 512 m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Delta59R said:

So to be clear this chart really I just a hypothetical imaginary situation where weight/fuel/drag never changes and thrust is constant? (Akin to turning off fuel usage in the sim)?

Yes.

  • Like 1

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m beginning to see the core misunderstanding here @Delta59R is under the misapprehension that the charts represent an absolute and impossible in the real world level of accurate empirical measurements from a flight test.

 

Ps curve is a mathematically derived curve VERIFIED by an average of multiple test events TO AN ACCEPTABLE tolerance of variation. 
 

It’s fundamentally impossible to measure that accurately in the real world. EVER.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, fat creason said:

Yes.

Welp I'm definitely learning a lot here and I appreciate it but I still fail to see the point of such a chart. 

I chuckle at the thought of a conversation between Grumman and the US Navy.

Grumman- Step this way toward this chart and have a look at what this puppy can do!

USN- wow! So it can go that fast with all that!?

Grumman- Nottt exactly..

USN- 😐

Grumman- 😁

USN- 😐

Meshify C w Noctua Fans, MSI Carbon Z790, 13900KS, 64gb 7200 Gskill, MSI 4090, MSI 240, Sam 1tb m2, Sam 512 m2, Seasonic 1000w, MSFF2 Stick + X56 Throttle, HP Reverb G2, Sony 83in A90J OLED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Delta59R said:

Welp I'm definitely learning a lot here and I appreciate it but I still fail to see the point of such a chart. 

I chuckle at the thought of a conversation between Grumman and the US Navy.

Grumman- Step this way toward this chart and have a look at what this puppy can do!

USN- wow! So it can go that fast with all that!?

Grumman- Nottt exactly..

USN- 😐

Grumman- 😁

USN- 😐

Well no, because everyone understands what the chart shows and then extrapolate from that. No performance chart for an aircraft can show every possible kind of variation or permutation, you have to extrapolate everything inbetween.

In DCS we have the luxury to actually be able to test more exactly against them which helps us recreate them.


Edited by Naquaii
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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