Using a Mach .70 climb profile (for MTOW and a bunch of ordnance):
A: 4,600 FPM at 5,500PPH (fuel flow) (x2 engines)
B: 8,000 FPM at 7,900PPH (fuel flow) (x2 engines)
An interesting experiment would be to see if the efficiency in getting to altitude faster might offset the increased initial fuel flow of the F110 engine…
More fun with testing (I know…you guys just want to blow stuff up…I enjoy this type of thing though for some reason…)…
I wagged some performance targets based on the -D performance charts. Mostly looking for a very draggy F-14 climbing to altitude (FL300 area seems to be its happy place) and then setting up for maximum endurance. I was curious in both the time to climb, fuel to climb, and endurance once established…
MTOW for both A and B models, M.70 climb to FL300, then targeting 230 KIAS:
A: Time to climb - 7+24
B: Time to climb - 5+05
A: Fuel remaining at top of climb - 17,300 lbs.
B: Fuel remaining at top of climb - 17,900 lbs.
A: Fuel flow at 230 indicated knots (loiter speed) - 2,700PPH x 2
B: Fuel flow at 230 indicated knots (loiter speed) - 2,400PPH x 2
A: Loiter time based on FF - 3H+08M
B: Loiter time based on FF - 3H+42M
Did anyone else notice that the airspeed graduations between 200 and 250 (inner scale) are in 25 knot increments, and between 250 and 300 they are 20 knot increments? 
So yeah - the GE F110 gets you to altitude faster, burning overall less fuel, and has a better loiter endurance once there. Now, those loiter times are based on purely dividing fuel remaining by fuel flow…so that is a zero reserve situation. The charts I referenced take into account a descent and trap weight as well…but it is interesting to see the times seem in-line. I had to guess that a bunch of fuel tanks and bombs would be a very high drag index…
Some interesting results in acceleration. I know there has been some discussion about this here and on some other forums about the higher end of the Mach numbers for the Heatblur F-14. These are just results of the flying…I’m not educated enough on the F-14 performance to know if they are flawed.
Conditions - 4x AIM-9, 2x AIM-7, 2x AIM-54A, 75% internal fuel, no external fuel tanks, FL250, starting airspeed 250 knots (goal to measure acceleration).
Time to accelerate:
A: M.9 - 38s
B: M.9 - 28s
A: M1.0 - 60s
B: M1.0 - 38s
(There seems to definitely be a difficulty in pressing through Mach 1 currently - I had read on Reddit that it helps to bunt the nose over and unload the plane…I do not know if this is what you’d have to do in the real aircraft…but I did NOT do it because I was just curious about maintaining level flight and seeing what the engines would do…)
A: M1.2 - 132s
B: M1.2 - 69s
A: M1.4 - 194s
B: M1.4 - 126s
A: M1.6 - 255s
B: M1.6 - unattainable
Sorry for the performance spam. Just fun to play with. For giggles, I wanted to compare the F-16. Same altitude and starting constraints (250 indicated) but with 4x AIM-120 2x AIM-9M and 2x fuel tanks:
M.9 - 34s
M1.0 - 45s
M1.2 - 83s
M1.4 - 150s
M1.42 maximum
Haha playing TPS graduate, are we? Interesting to see what an utter rocket ship the B is. Not like we didn’t already know… how does the eagle compare? And the Su-27 and MiG-29?
Interesting stuff.
Interesting stuff. At what speed did the F-14B top out at FL250?
The fastest I went in the F-14B was M1.8ish. I was in a slight climb where I ended up at over 45000ft. That was with droptanks, 2xAIM-54C, 2xAIM-7M and 2xAIM-9M.
Edit:
A clean F-14B must be incredible, never tried it. The B is faster through the transonic regime than the MiG-21Bis but I know that past M1.3ish the MiG becomes an absolute rocket. If you climb at a constant 800km/h indicated until you hit that magic M1.3 and then let her rip she’s very quickly past M2.0 and you need to climb again to stay below M2.1
Of course the Tomcat doesn’t have the same engine limitations but it would be interesting to see a comparison.
So has it been everyone else’s observation that escaping the flat spin is sometimes accomplished by going manual sweep to the aft position, opposite rudder, asymmetric thrust against the spin, then rocking the nose up and down until you exit out of the bottom (hopefully with enough room to recover?)… I’ve had decent success with it…but you have to have quite a bit of altitude to recover…
Unless your call sign is Goose. 
Wheels
Any excuse is a good one 
I’ve just tested my campaign engine mission for the umpteenth time today. Admittedly less fun that what you’re doing. But as it gets more to my liking it gets more funner…
Just spent a couple hours simply doing cats and traps on the Hoggit training server. Fantastic fun. A few Hornets came out to the boat…and some F-14s. Everyone was super friendly and just chilling. Shared the pattern with “Loco” for a good hour or so…him in a Hornet, me in the F-14A. It was great fun taking turns at making passes. We varied between 1 to 4 wires, and only a bolter or two…and no crashes. It was fantastic. It was the first time flying the F-14 with the Reverb G2 and it is amazing. It is sort of disturbing when I grab my beer off the desk and take a swig because I can’t see my hand and beer in the canopy bow mirror when it feels like I should be able to…haha…
Testing the -A and the air-to-air missiles this morning (all morning). It sure seems like the AIM-54 is not during very well unless me and Jester are doing a lot of stuff wrong (I’m trusting him to do his job). Lots of misses on non-maneuvering IL-76 and Tu-22 targets.
Is “switching to PSTT” a new thing…or was that always in there? Seems like very often that is causing the missile to go dumb. And I thought the AIM-54C was supposed to just go find its target with its own active radar if support was lost from the F-14 (I know that is an over-simplification)…?
I’m pretty rusty in the F-14 though. This frustration is why I always enjoyed ferrying cargo or dropping bombs more 
So browsing around over on the ED forums…I see quite a few posts with similar stories. Perhaps everyone is as bad at managing Jester and the RIO controls as I am…but I see stuff like only 1 in 10 missile shots being effective, trouble with Jester re-acquiring STT, etc… The developer did post the following (December 27 - so relatively fresh information):
"Honestly? Apart from what we say ourselves you have to regard any rumours or information as conjecture. There has been a couple of threads discussing the AIM-54 which we have followed but we seldom comment in those threads as a lot of it is speculation or just not possible to model in DCS or maybe any simulator.
In any case, what sets our AIM-54 apart from other DCS missiles is that we had a rather exhaustive modelling done of the missile itself which then informed our modelling in DCS. But it is still a lua defined missile just as any other DCS missile like how the AIM-7, AIM-120 (before their changes) or Super 530 are. What we can tune is the flight model parameters, motor performance and basic chaff resistance. This in effect makes our AIM-54 the same as many other DCS missiles just that we could base those parameters on our modelling.
The other thing that sets our AIM-54 apart is that ED helped us make it possible to control the lofting and seeker activate/seeker state by calling functions in the already existing API, it never was a completely new “missile API”. This is what was finally introduced later autumn this year and made it possible for us to have the AIM-54 purely SARH in PD-STT and to control at what point it would go active in our code. Additionally it allowed us to turn on or off the lofting based on range or ACM modes to be closer to real life. This does however mean that AI F-14s might not use correct lofting or seeker functionality as we can only control this for player aircraft. So AI STT shots will still behave like ARH missiles as an example.
So as it currently stands our AIM-54s are in a stage where we are at a limit of what we currently can do and we’re mostly doing bug fixing atm. In regards to chaff resistance this has unfortunately changed a couple of times lately and we’re still trying to tweak it until we’re happy with it.
Missile flight performance outside of pure FM stuff and guidance and seeker performance as it is is completely out of our hands (other than what has been mentioned) and that’s just how it is in DCS currently.
That said we do know that ED are making improvements to stuff like this and we are looking at changing over to use the same new missile flight model parameters as the improved AIM-7 and AIM-120 currently do but it will take a lot of work as we will now have to retune it all and we’re also not sure how much it will improve the missiles. We’re also have no information as it stands regarding how this will affect missile guidance in any way or if it will even do that.
We will ofc continue to improve things working with ED and improve the missiles in any way we can in the future if the opportunity arises but as it stands currently it’s mostly bugfixes and finetuning that’s happening.
I hope that helps you somewhat!
Hey…so some success. With some continued reading, one person suggested that the F-14 radar seemed to perform better in a “look up” mode. I had been doing tests at same altitude (me and target both at around 25,000’)… Dropping my altitude to 12K and shooting against targets at 25K, resulted in a miss at 75NM but hits at 50NM and 40NM…so definitely an improvement…
Kind of cool…just noticed you can hit the wake turbulence from your AIM-54… 
:
I have to admit that I have no experience fighting with Jester. I have only ever flown into combat with a human RIO but I suspect that Jester can’t utilize the AWG-9 to its full potential.
My RIO and I actually tried the AIM-54C against an AWACs flying at 26000ft last week, and he managed to find the AWACS from a distance of over 300 nautical miles in Pulse Doppler Mode and we easily picked it up at 200NM in RWS. We were flying at 35000ft M0.8 when he first found it on the DDD and at about 150NM out I started to accellerate to give the missile maximum boost.
We launched the Phoenix in TWS from over 80NM flying at almost 40000ft and Mach 1.6 and the missile tracked and hit.
Yeah…I’m not having too much trouble with Jester finding the targets so much as keeping them locked for the missile. Without any real tweaking I can find IL-76 size targets at about 175 miles. Scanning from a bit lower altitude does seem to work a bit better. I just managed to get a hit on an L-39 from 30NM…so I’m getting a little better. Will continue to explore it today… Thanks for your input!
I’m doing my testing over NTTR too. I do wonder if ground clutter has some effect on the radar versus a clean ocean setting… 
The AWACS was over flat land north of the Caucasus so that might be a factor but we were also able to find and lock firendly tankers flying at 23000ft-26000ft(ish) right over the caucasus from almost 180NM so I really think that it’s just Jester being in way over its head.
Brochure missile ranges are wildly overstated for all but the very beat case scenarios. Engagement geometry matters a lot with long range lofts lile a phoenix shot. Tacview 'em Chris.
