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

[LanceCriminal86]

I went back through some of the old Tomcat Association posts about the very topic, and only 1 jet ever put out an instrumented run @ 2.4 Mach, which was 1X (the replacement jet for the prototype that crashed). Context was a demo run for contract to prove it could hit certain numbers, but that would have been a very clean prototype jet, with all of the intake ramp positions, and without de-rated TF-30s as fleet jets later received. The prototype jets didn't even have radar or most of the production internal electronics, but rather had instrumentation collection/transmission gear for test data but quite different from the ultimate production jets. So we're talking about a much lighter, lower drag jet making those numbers, once.

 

Anecdotes from fleet pilots, RAG instructors, Grumman pilots, and even folks at Pax River in later years was that a fleet configured A, "slick" as in no stores, was about good for 2.0 with maybe a little more room depending on how ballsy you were with fuel and getting lashes for the paint getting scorched. Most pilots that actually tried ended up in the 1.8-1.9 Mach regions before having to beeline to land. Consider fleet jets had the glove pylons on, possibly fuel tank pylons, and over time much more weight than the prototype jets.

The late 90s F-14A 135-GRs we have in DCS as mentioned had more weight from the ALQ-126 jammers that were added, TCS pod, ARL-67, GPS dome and wiring for LANTIRN, and other various changes internally. The 80s ones won't be much different, maybe slightly less weight from not having ALR-67's added equipment versus the ALR-45/50 and without the GPS dome and other sundry bits needed for LANTIRN. That adds up in terms of weight and drag. And that 80s configuration still was heavier with more drag than the older block jets like -90s, and the early production jets before the engines were de-rated to prevent the compressors from coming apart(60, 65, 70 blocks).

The comments about B/D jets were similar, some claiming they saw 2.0 with some room to keep going but backed off to avoid the wrath of maintainers or other repercussions. Most of those weren't fleet scenarios either, but RAG instructors or Grumman delivery/test folks on "Shakedown" flights.

[Delta59R]

13 hours 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.

Just for fun, tried it, made things worse. 1061kn @ 8000lbs fuel @38kft

[RustBelt]

9 hours 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-

This is literally how all government procurement works. Except change the USN- to USN- and you have it perfect.

 

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Delta59R said:

Just for fun, tried it, made things worse. 1061kn @ 8000lbs fuel @38kft

Standard day 15°C?

[Hiob]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Standard day 15°C?

Btw - just wondering. At Angels38 temperatures will probably subzero. Has DCS modelled the temperature decline with altitude?

[draconus]

9 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Has DCS modelled the temperature decline with altitude?

Yes.

[Delta59R]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Standard day 15°C?

Yep. One way that you could get closer to that number using a real life scenario is if you brought drop tanks with you and then met a fuel tanker and refueled and then started the burn at elevation dropping the tanks along the way.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Delta59R

[greyseal494]

Well I thought at least my RIO would tell me my speedbrakes were extended before I launched....

[draconus]

1 hour ago, greyseal494 said:

Well I thought at least my RIO would tell me my speedbrakes were extended before I launched....

If you were at least at MIL power you wouldn't have the problem.

But it's ground crew that should've hold the launch and pilot should've check that first.

Edited May 25, 2023 by draconus

[Indianajon]

I know it's totally unscientific and potentially unpopular but who else feels that after a few dozen cat shots the increased aoa feels fairly good now and not as scary and huge an issue it felt on launch? Anyone? Or is it just me?

[Nealius]

The pitch-up itself isn't that big of a deal, but the nose suddenly falling at the end of the pitch-up moment is unsettling. And looks unrealistic when comparing external footage to real Tomcat shots.

[JetCat]

Still the best and most beautyful, and also most ...well in civilian airliners we call that "study-level" when the cockpit has extreme system realism all switches simulated, sophisticated jet in my F-collection.

I have noticed one behaviour of the cat that is really strange (for 2-3 times now), when loading four AIM-54, two Sidewinders and one Sparrow on the back middle rail the jet is pulling the nose up vertical into the air after taking-off and is uncontrollable and is not letting the nose down until stalling. Only when trimming the nose fully down it suddenly flies fully normal.

Is this loadout somehow wrong or unbalanced? Is this normal? I think that behaviour should be vice versa with the nose not going up when not fully trimming up because this loadout looks very very front-heavy. But I never want to miss my allmighty beloved Sparrow with VSL that can unfortunately not be loaded on the two Sidewinder pylons.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by JetCat
four Phoenix, not three, but four times having the Phoenix rise from the Tomcat