Heatblur F-14 and Forrestal Update

dcs

#2248

Just a guess but it could be that they felt modeling the F110 would be easier than the capricious TF30. Could be that they felt that their existing engine model for the Viggen can be adapted well to the F110 and not to the TF30. Or maybe it is about some other part of the A+. Rather than financing that part in advance themselves, releasing the B first enables them to get some revenue going to fund the further development of the A+.

Maybe they had better access to SMEs for the B, maybe the reason lies in the art department (access to airframes). Unless Nicholas likes to chime in himself, your guess is as good as anybodies.


#2249

Perhaps also releasing the “good” version before the “bad” one might help with hype momentum and sales.


#2250

I always assumed that as well @schurem.


#2251

There… pre-ordered. MagzTV took me over the line. That looks like so much fun.


#2252

both valid points there @sobek and @schurem

I just would like to fly the A before B, so I gues I need to wait for my turn.

Need to watch the latest videos if they worked for you @easy :slight_smile:


#2253

I heard they were going with “Hangar200” as the AI pilot’s call sign…seeing as how he flies Heatblur’s other fighter, the Viggen, so well…:astonished:


#2254

To quote Mr. Iceman… «SNEEZE!»
:wink:


#2255

Wasn’t that more of a “cough#@[email protected]” ?


#2256

If I had to guess, it’s the modeling of the TF30s represents a huge investment of resources, time, and bug crushing. To fully simulate just how finicky the TF30s were is probably something they want to do after they’ve finalized a lot of the other things, as we’ve seen in a lot of the videos so far. The accident record of the F-14As with the TF30s speaks for itself in this regard. I highly suspect that the F-14B will be far more commonly used than the F-14A for this reason alone.


#2257

I would actually like to do some tests on multiplayer if any of us ever get the time. Similar to the stuff they did with the lightning and starfighter.
Low speed head to head acceleration tests at varying altitude and supersonic drag races. Would be fairly interesting I think to see the actual difference between alpha and bravo


#2258

Say the word out loud.
Does it sound like a cough to you? :wink:


#2259

Although it’ll be interesting to see how it pans out in DCS, it’s pretty much no contest in terms of real world data. The F-14B had a whopping 22,000lbs more thrust than the F-14A, for ~1700lbs of extra weight. The GE engines were a much newer design, made damn near 15 years later than the TF30s. One of the key features of the F110 installation was computerized fuel control, which represents a huge advantage over the older TF30. Think about it: the F110 allows taking off from a carrier with dry thrust alone. That kind of performance leap is, quite frankly, incredible.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-specification.htm

http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f14_4.html

Comparatively speaking, however… There were only 70 F-14Bs in total. The F-14A accounted for more than 470 aircraft, and although a number were converted to B and D, the bulk remained in service as As. If Heatblur confirms that the F-14A will also receive LANTIRN capability, then I know for the bulk of missions I make, the A will be the F-14 of my choice.

Per Magz and Jabbers’ videos above, I think this needs to be posted again:

Basically: no intentional spins; negative G maneuvers restricted to 10 seconds max on burners, 20 seconds dry; weapons launch restricted with flaps down and slats out; no fuel dumping with burners; no rolling maneuvers greater than 360 degrees. How often will these be violated and what will the effects be? That is what I find exciting about all this, even though I’m far from a Turkey fan.


#2260

After spending a little bit of time in the JustFlight F-14 Extended, I really wish that we were getting the SparrowHawk HUD, which began to be deployed 3/2003.


#2261

Seeing that mentioned reminds me of just how many variations we had found in the AH-64 fleet. What we know of as the AH-64A actually had a lot of changes and additions throughout its service life before the D was developed, and then the D had various changes throughout its own block process as well. Plus, some had a mishmash of equipment applied, like the TXNG which had AH-64As packing CMWS, M-TADS, Arrowhead, TEDAC, and a few other systems previously only seen on the D models.

If you look at the F-14, you can see a lot of those in the same way, so even by separating from basic model there are still generational changes that have huge effects under the hood than what meets the eye. That, unfortunately, represents a lot of work that most people don’t quite seem to understand. I wouldn’t have blamed Heatblur if they only did the F-14A for the time period of 1986-1991, given just how many changes can be applied from a 10-15 year span of time from 1986 to 2001.


#2262

That is static thrust though. In the air, things were a bit different, although i agree that the F110 was overall a much better engine.


#2263

image


#2264

wondering why no one mentioned the sparks on the tail hook of the landing shot in Jabbers video.


#2265

the F110’s didnt Kill Goose.


#2266

Better engine, Welded glove vanes, more capability.


#2267

Apparently I am still missing it. I can’t find an external carrier landing shot in Jabbers video?