Kalashnikov63 Posted July 19 Posted July 19 I haven't Played the F-14 module since I got it, as the instructions were easily the worst of ANY module DCS sells., and I have better things to do than try to figure out omissions and errors in documentation - someone was paid to do it, and did it poorly, so if DCS wants it done right, I'm available, for the appropriate fee. Upon flying the F-14 again, I made some very interesting discoveries; the new F-14B can not only hit, but, if you manage your energy carefully, it can sustain 12+ g-force loading, at speeds ranging around the middle-high 400 knot ranging, giving it a turn circle the size of a donut! Depending on which energy state you approach your turn from, that will determine how high you can hold the airframe loading. The best results seem to come from approaching the turn from just below corner, and adding energy. Attacking from above corner might result (depending on your loadout) in runaway thrust, changes in wing geometry, and therefore a departure from the variables that combine to determine corner speed. Honestly, this is absurd! My son flew an F-14 off the Nimitz, and when I asked him what the maximum airframe loading was, he replied; "...seven or eight Gs. We had such a large flight envelope (due to the swing-wing construction), that we would say that some planes fly faster, some slower, but never both." He also mentioned that there was a certain degree of care that had to be taken with extreme loading, as, while the wing box was machined out of a single piece of grade-5 titanium, we were advised against high airframe loading at minimum wing sweep, due to the resulting torsional forces on the wing box pinions. He also mentioned that some of the greatest care had to be taken again against vertical stabilizer flutter. In a high-speed/G turn, the vertical stabs would flutter so badly, that they ran the risk of either complete, or partial disintegration. To make a long story short, 7-8 G-forces were perfectly adequate for the F-14B, as the improved engines, excellent flight envelope, excellent turn radius, and exceptional rate of angular displacement at moderate speeds, made the aircraft a formidable dog fighter. Now, to turn on my computer to find a single F-14 thrashing 4 F-16s, or 4 Su-27s, pulling 12 Gs at 460 knots, well..... let's just say it strained credibility. I don't know what's up at DCS, and I know that *I* couldn't write a combat sim solo, but it seems that certain choices have made some modules less entertaining , and more aggravating to operate, forced us to re-learn basic commands, and just plain frustrating. To those arm chair pilots who naively parrot ; "...Oh, but they do it for realism...", I must ask; now how did I miss that, I wonder... Tell you what; find a real aviator (such as myself), and ask him/her what kind of mouse they use to fly their aircraft. Also, ask them about which keyboard key combination they program for things like landing gear deployment, trims, etc. Also, ask them how large of an opening they cut on their windscreen cover, so that they can't see anything peripherally as they fly. Personally, if I wish to self-destruct, I have a great key combo; LShift+Tab+RCtrl+Enter+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H. I program it into all the planes I fly; all the way from Cessna 172, to MiG-21. I hope someone got the point. I turned to Combat sims after my health problems made it impossible to pass medical, and thus obviated my ability to operate an aircraft solo. Back then, graphics weren't what they are know, but over the years, DCS/Fighter Collection/Eagle Dynamics began introducing module-type packages the were suppose to be more "realistic". Sims can only be so realistic, and I respect that; my reason for purchasing my first one was the promise of the most accurate flight physics, which is a realistic effort to program into a module. But the plethora of commands which all activate the same function on different ways, on different aircraft, is too much. All aircraft have landing gear; all have the ability to turn on the ground; all have brakes, etc. A bit of standardization for commands will help customers feel a bit more ease about getting into the learning curve. Sims are NOTHING LIKE actually flying an aircraft; but at least they can be reason to model correct flight model response, and relax the learning curve a bit. And in the meantime, if you want something that corners like an Me-163 and rockets out like an X-15, have a look at DCS' F-14B - and see if you can get a two or three semester online class to teach you how to operate their ridiculously complex, over sped instruction manual....... Kalashnikov
Dragon1-1 Posted July 19 Posted July 19 (edited) Did you actually try sweeping the wings back forward after pulling 12G? Because if you did, you might find that indeed, the wing box pinions didn't like your stunt at all, and your wings are now stuck in the "optimum position". If you pull that 12G in DCS, chances are you will find yourself missing something, like your INS, wing sweep or a gauge somewhere. Or not, it's pretty random what breaks and when. I don't know if we have stab flutter, but you overload the plane at your own peril. Yes, in DCS the F-14 can survive a 12-14G overload condition and keep flying, but fortunately it can't simulate the "conversation" with the crew chief that would ensue after you came back (not without increasing the age rating of the sim, anyway ). Also, when did your son fly the Tomcat? That's important, too. In later years in particular, F-14s were severely derated for both maximum Gs and speed. They could, if you pushed it, still achieve it physically, but unless you did it to save your or someone else's life, actually doing so would get you chewed out by the CAG and the airframe would likely be written off. HB is working on modeling airframe wear, but right now, AFAIK we have them in a state they'd between the 80s and 90s. Not brand sparkling new, but not the perpetually broken down hangar queens they were in the mid-2000s. As for controls, yeah, DCS is best experienced in VR (get a good headset and this fixes the peripheral vision problem), and with as many button boxes and physical switches as you can afford. Modules are designed with this in mind, every dev basically assumes you'll bind everything important to a HOTAS/button box, then use the mouse for the rest. Using a low button count stick and a keyboard does complicate things, the default bindings are a bit of a wild west. You can do controls standardization yourself, but it's a pain to change every module to your liking. Worth noting, the MiG-21 and Cessna 172 don't have the same brake controls - the MiG has a pneumatic wheel brake, which is controlled with a stick lever and rudder pedals (it also has a nose gear brake, which you can turn on and off by a switch). The gear lever in a MiG also has three positions, not two, and if you leave it up, you'll use up the compressed air and end up having no brakes when landing. So in many cases, the controls are quite different, and an experienced Western pilot jumping into a vintage Russian jet is in for quite a few surprises. Edited July 19 by Dragon1-1
Kalashnikov63 Posted July 20 Author Posted July 20 (edited) On 6/9/2025 at 2:38 PM, Rudel_chw said: the manual should be in the "doc" folder of the Module (at /eagle dynamics/dcs/mods/aircraft/m-2000) 11 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: Did you actually try sweeping the wings back forward after pulling 12G? Because if you did, you might find that indeed, the wing box pinions didn't like your stunt at all, and your wings are now stuck in the "optimum position". If you pull that 12G in DCS, chances are you will find yourself missing something, like your INS, wing sweep or a gauge somewhere. Or not, it's pretty random what breaks and when. I don't know if we have stab flutter, but you overload the plane at your own peril. Yes, in DCS the F-14 can survive a 12-14G overload condition and keep flying, but fortunately it can't simulate the "conversation" with the crew chief that would ensue after you came back (not without increasing the age rating of the sim, anyway ). Also, when did your son fly the Tomcat? That's important, too. In later years in particular, F-14s were severely derated for both maximum Gs and speed. They could, if you pushed it, still achieve it physically, but unless you did it to save your or someone else's life, actually doing so would get you chewed out by the CAG and the airframe would likely be written off. HB is working on modeling airframe wear, but right now, AFAIK we have them in a state they'd between the 80s and 90s. Not brand sparkling new, but not the perpetually broken down hangar queens they were in the mid-2000s. As for controls, yeah, DCS is best experienced in VR (get a good headset and this fixes the peripheral vision problem), and with as many button boxes and physical switches as you can afford. Modules are designed with this in mind, every dev basically assumes you'll bind everything important to a HOTAS/button box, then use the mouse for the rest. Using a low button count stick and a keyboard does complicate things, the default bindings are a bit of a wild west. You can do controls standardization yourself, but it's a pain to change every module to your liking. Worth noting, the MiG-21 and Cessna 172 don't have the same brake controls - the MiG has a pneumatic wheel brake, which is controlled with a stick lever and rudder pedals (it also has a nose gear brake, which you can turn on and off by a switch). The gear lever in a MiG also has three positions, not two, and if you leave it up, you'll use up the compressed air and end up having no brakes when landing. So in many cases, the controls are quite different, and an experienced Western pilot jumping into a vintage Russian jet is in for quite a few surprises. Thank you for your very well informed reply to my extremely wry venting of frustration. Re: the Cessna/Fishbed quip, I was just being sarcastic, as it didn't refer to braking, it referred to a self-destruct command:. Personally, if I wish to self-destruct, I have a great key combo; LShift+Tab+RCtrl+Enter+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H. I program it into all the planes I fly; all the way from Cessna 172, to MiG-21. My son flew the Tomcat from '99 to '04, if I remember right. Good night. Edited July 20 by Kalashnikov63
Dragon1-1 Posted July 20 Posted July 20 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kalashnikov63 said: My son flew the Tomcat from '99 to '04, if I remember right. Yeah, that would've been a very worn out airframe. I've heard stories of no less than two incidents in which a part broke which was stated to "never break" in the docs, presumably because it was overdesigned with respect to the rest of the aircraft. Sending up spares when one aircraft scheduled to fly had an issue was a common occurrence, notably unlike Hornet squadrons. The F-14 we have modeled is in a somewhat better shape, about a decade younger, and with a few hundred fewer carrier traps and training dogfights behind it. That means you can get away with some abuse without the wings falling off. Pre-FBW jets are entirely dependent on the pilot respecting their limits, HB modeled this, as well as the safety margins. For what it's worth, in words of one Tomcat instructor, the F-14B is "as close to a rocketship as the Navy has" when in clean configuration and at about half fuel. So the comparison to the X-15 isn't entirely unwarranted. You could plug in the blower, pick up some speed, then zoom off about halfway to space in a vertical climb. Even towards the end of its service life, despite the G and mach restrictions, it could put up a fight in the vertical. Edited July 20 by Dragon1-1
Recommended Posts