thats basically f-14a+ which is literally just f-14b
I mean 1998-2004 configuration.
Their top speed and weight are better than the F110 model, so they would work as a side grade to the B model.
In game tf40 gets heat signature of sun. That just makes plane unplayable, so, idk.
Slight increase in top speed wouldnt be better
1 Like
This proves how their implementation of heat signature modeling is so bad.
From my manual(2004 version), the temperature of the air coming out of the engine exhaust nozzle should be more cooler from current one but, I can’t use it for bug report for obvious reasons.
Fortunately, I may be able to obtain a unclassified NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1 from the mid-1980s, so I might write a bug report.
2 Likes
Yeah what he said
2 Likes
They don’t really need the manual …
In newer jets in general i think they use free sources.
I don’t think there is a Rafale manual , at least not online , though i’ve seen plenty of those https://elektroflug.ch/media/anleitungen/het/Rafalemanual.pdf
about various types!
I don’t think they help :P
Also, but i don’t think they take it as a source…I think this discribes how the heat from the engines is.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-engine-05.htm
which feels correct. The turbine inlet temperature is always higher than the outlet in turbofan engines.
IIRC, This image is exactly the same as the description and diagram of the heat signature in NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1.
If HOME of MATS has it then that part isn’t classified then…
and from a little bit of reading i did about engines in general, inlet turbine temperature is always warmer than the outlet, else it drops the laws of thermodynamics.
GJ using the inlet number for the outlet is just wrong…
The problem is that NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1 contains both items that are subject to export restrictions and items that are not.
The manual I have is literally the latest flight manual for the A model, so I can’t use it for bug reports, but there are many manuals from the 1980s that are not subject to export restrictions.
The Smithsonian has a 1986 version of the manual, which, to my knowledge, is not subject to export restrictions. You can also get an edited version of the manual on Amazon for a few bucks. That manual is based on the Block 120, which was the newest model at the time, so it’s probably from the mid-80s too
They don’t really need the manuals.
Here they even fix things because a brochure said so or it’s calculated in the video.
Meanwhile about that specific thing with the engines, it’s the laws of thermodynamics.
You have to use a value well below the turbine input temperature, because there is ALWAYS ΔT , it will always lose temperature from inlet to outlet… the value depends. It can be from 15% -65% temperature loss… but it’s ALWAYS the loss of ΔΤ.
They don’t need source on that, 15mins reading thermodynamics and a basic understanding…
Put the minimum… still it will be something like 980 deg C.
PS: and no i’m no physicist , i was accountant , doorman , bellman, receptionist and now i’m supply manager in a hotel… Nothing to do with physics. You just need some reading. 15 mins. Can’t they do it on their own?
Even DC’s uses a value of 926 deg C. I don’t know what they are thinking…
1 Like
The TF-30s power band was adapted for higher speeds, that doesn’t mean it works like a ramjet. It doesn’t. Simply put, most of the compression used to improve thrust and SFC is done by the intake and not by the compressor, therefore the thrust continues to increase the faster you go.
Of course, it is not as bad as the “run-a-way” engines on the MiG-25, which could potentially be difficult to stop and can run away in thrust or RPM if you go too fast iirc.
Even the MiG-29 has this kind of a design, where the engine can only produce the maximum thrust at high speeds. Something that is different, like the F-18’s F404 engine, produce very close to maximum thrust at static speeds. This is far more ideal for carrier operations.
Ram air intakes are not ramjets, and there is a very big distinction. Using compressed air from the intake is not the same as solely compressing air using an inlet throat.
2 Likes
Thanks for the explanation.
I couldn’t explain it well.
1 Like
It’s a good job they don’t then…
1 Like
doe’s anyone have further data of the AIM-54C for the 14? im considering making a suggestion post to give the 14B other variants of the AIM-54C as a means to make it more 13.0 worthy (cause currently we can all agree its pretty sad rn)
1 Like
don’t even try it.
they don’t want to fix the plane.
3 Likes
anything regarding the c+ is still heavily classified, you can look at the aim-54 forum for plenty of details
2 Likes
Ah, could u drop a link to the aim54 forum pls
thanks mate :D
It doesn’t matter…
After a point they just used third party data and guesstimations.
It’s impossible to have unclassified things for 2020+ planes , except commercial resources/brochures or manufacture released data (which is most likely wikipedia data/for reference - approximate-not 100% accurate anyway).
And to be specific, it could be way better missile with dual-plane 25G anyway, but they don’t have dual -plane…for any missile anyway.
The ECCM resistance isn’t modeled yet, anyway… so even if, if you want to model it make it like AMRAAM but with AIM-54C FM (which is still wrong anyway, needs fixing) and your half-way there (the 54C+ had AMRAAM components anyway).
It’s not ^it’s classified^ … when you already have ^more classified^ things in game… there are many sources to use . You don’t need the manual to create anything under ^released data^ etiquette …