WIP: F-14 B/D
-
Sometime ago I mentioned the tails and how I need to straighten them and connect them to the base assembly housing. It took some time…
It might not look it but I seperated the tails and the rudder. The extrusion at the rudder bottom is where the actuator rotates the rudder and the housing is the aerodynamic continuation facilitating airflow from the rudder actuator housing (the bulge you see on the starboard side of the base). The rotation of the rudder requires a movable plate that acts as a cover for the gap whenever the rudders are not in full rotation to the starboard side. That cover is the square plate you see between the tail and the rudder.
Above you also see the small square rubber sealings that rest on the engine shroud. Visible here on the lower left below the cover
And on the real thing
As you see rudder shape has to be corrected somewhat.
Here the two objects
For now they’re straight up and not tilted. Also the top needs to come down just a little to get the right height but I first have to correct some elements and straighten them out before tilting them back to the outside.
That’s it for the tails. The rest (transparency, rigging, etc.) will be done in Max. All triangulated they now stand at about 2200 tris.
-
I can relate I waited pretty much 6 years to start experimenting with it. Once you get into it it’s quite addictive actually. Besides you start to see the world with different eyes always thinking perspective and how could I model this or that :))). Seriously though once you get your blueprints front right/left top set up and simply start to draw a plane across a section and then adapt it from the side and from the front and you begin to see a shape that resembles RL forms you’re out of the gates basically. The rest is just best practice, key shortcuts and increasing efficiency.
There are guys who model a car rim in 4 minutes just by smart modelling a tiny section and then duplicating mirroring joining duplicating rotating etc. it comes down to knowing your way around the program functionality. I’m off on a tangent…anyway, glad you like the Cat.
At school my favorite subject always was technical drawing. I was really good at it. As I got my first PC I tried to adapt my knowledge about it to some CAD programs I tested, but get never along with it. Have tried it a few times over the years, but I need a ruler and paper for it. Can’t do it with a program. So I decided to do repaints only. It’s much simpler .
I never understood why there was no serious simulator of the Tomcat. It’s such an awesome bird and it’s really interesting in case of simulation. There were so many F-16 sims, a few with the F-15, but none for the F-14. The last real simulation was Fleetdefender from Microprose. It’s still good, but a “little” aged now .
The best you could get was a F-14 mod in Strike Fighters and later the North Atlantic addon for SF2. Beside those the F-14 only had a shadowy existence in some action-sims, like Jetfighter IV or Topgun Fire At Will.
The D-modell never made it to a simulator. Even the Tomcat from Leatherneck Simulations (if she will ever see the light of day) will only simulate the A & B-models, but the real “Cat” is the D-model. Only the D and a few B had the new F110-GE-400 engines. That was the first time the jet could reach the performance it was built for. The TF30 engines made this bird always number two, after the Eagle, but with the new engines and it’s variable wing-geometry it was a real good dogfighter. No F-16 at all, but for it’s weight a real agile bird.
At the peak-level of her lifetime, the NAVY decided to retire her and get the Superbug instead. I like the Hornet also (more the old C-model), but in my opinion, she never will be a real replacement for the Tomcat.
Don’t like the whole 5th generation fighters, like F-22, F-35, EF2000 (no real 5th gen). To much electronics, to fragile and not emotional in any way. Just pieces of flying hardware with electronic brains in it. The pilot have to ask the plane, what he is permitted to do. That’s the wrong way in my opinion. Fly by wire as far as the 4th-generation goes is o.k, but to degrade pilots to passengers in such a way the new fighters will do, is really stupid in my eyes. Not to mention the whole stealth sh… . Most of this will be useless in near future, cause the radar technology will also advance. Hope the military will recognize this in the near future and switch back to the real intelligence in the cockpit between the pilots ears.
-
The Tomcat is my favorite plane. But even then, It’s hard to admit that in the end, retiring it was the best course of action. It never got to do what it was built to do,thank God. Which was to Intercept Russian Bombers at extreme Long Ranges from the Carrier Fleet. It was a big bulky aircraft, hard to store on a Carrier. It was a maintenance nightmare from what I’ve heard about it. The Cat was a Money Sink, in an age where it wasn’t needed. Hornets and Super Hornets could just do more, and in less space too. The Tomcat didn’t have any other Medium Range option other than the Sparrow, which is greatly outclassed by the AMRAAM. Perhaps the Tomcat could have been retrofitted or modified to carry the AIM-120, but that’s an argument for another day. In a Ground attack role, The F-14 was adequate but again, the Hornet and Super Hornet can just do it better.
As a Replacement, there can never be one for the F-14. It was a unique aircraft that came around at the right time and place. It will be fondly remembered and never forgotten. There’s a surprising number of air frames on display, given the fact that all of the Tomcats in Navy Service are now destroyed.
My only hope is to be able to one day fly the Tomcat in Falcon with a Proper model and cockpit. Having had some fun slapping a F-16B in there for giggles, I can assure you there’s nothing more fun than Seeing a flight of IL-28s in a line, Switching to TWS, and Launching AIM-54s at them from 60 miles out. Though that AI needs a work on… They don’t like to launch that far out Heaven forbid we’re not in AMRAAM Range there #2.
-
-
My only hope is to be able to one day fly the Tomcat in Falcon with a Proper model and cockpit.
No worries. I can tell you that in the lower basement levels of this modding forum you will find a total of 4-5 threads dealing with all aspects of simulation for this aircraft including flight model, cockpit (B and D), weapons systems implementation, any and all argument for and against this bird, political background, technical specifications including long and complex charts and eye witness accounts of pilots, tweakers, Grummanites, etc. as well as general usability discussion within Falcon.
Combined views: 250.000+, combined pages: 250+
So all’s been said and discussed to the rafters. What we need now is momentum going again to reach simultaneous development of model/pit/flight model including sound and, as far as possible, weapons/avionics implementation. It will happen. Then again I say this coming up on a 10 year anniversary of modding Falcon :).
-
The D-modell never made it to a simulator.
There are no EM charts. You would have to (actually a number of people are doing exactly that right now but not for the Delta cat) reverse engineer the flight model to match turn and energy characteristics that match eye witness or other relevant accounts. Don’t know if he’s still around but ‘Mike Metcalf’ started doing exactly that and eventually got to a model that successfully resembled many of the characteristic behaviors of the F-14A. Plus AWG-9/APG-71 are killer systems that require a simulation of their own and there’s no data. And that’s just flight model and radar, you seein’ the challenge?
To give you just a slight taste of the issue:
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?10331-F-14D-Cockpit/page55
-
While browsing through my archive I found this and have to repost…probably single most impressive F-14 AFM comment in the history of the internet:
Originally Posted by molnibalage
No. Ps tells you the whole story. This is why so amazing the E-M Theory by John Boyd and Tom Chrsite. It was used illustrating AC dogfight capabilites. In the same case where an AC have bigger Ps that is the better AC in that case. End of the story.LOL
Dude, Boyd theory is just one way of looking at things. It’s by no means the only one or the best at that. It has it’s advantages for sure, but to quote another authority on ACM (one with more aerial kills then Boyd ever had), “the energy advantage determines when will the engagement start, the angles advantage determines how it will end”.Now, as to why specific excess power isn’t the whole story and with a concrete example of the F-14A. It is documented in video materials and photography that during air shows the F-14A was constantly being able to do a full 360 at minimum turning radius of about 1000ft without losing air speed in about 20 second. That is a circle the length of about 6300ft. The sustained turning rate in these examples is about 18deg/s. Doing a 6300ft circle in 20 seconds translates to about 315ft per second or about 185-190 nautical miles per hour (knots) air speed. Performing this at airshow means this is practically at sea level wish would mean a mach number of about 0.28. Now take a look at he Ps values around mach 0.3. Based on Ps alone, the F-14A should be able to pull no more then 10 or 11deg/s at best. Let’s presume that the aircraft performing this aerobatics at airshows are probably running an extremely light configuration with only 10% internal fuel. The empty weight of an F-14 is 43,735 lbs. Maximum internal fuel capacity is 16,200 lb. If our chart describes a clean AC with a 100% fuel tank that would account for a 59935lbs Tomcat. The airshow Tomcat would be 45355lbs in comparison. 75-76% the total mass. Are you trying to tell me that a 25% decrease in mass results in 44% increase in sustained turning performance??? There is something not accounted for here mate, something that Ps alone can not quantify. That’s where the lift coefficients and induced drag come to play. At the lower edge of the envelope. For the F-14 that’s between mach 0.2 and mach 0.7.
You already know the higher wing aspect gives the F-14 decrease in induced drag twice as large compared to the F-15. The NACA 64A209.65 mod 64A208.91 mod airfoil has a similar lift coefficient at the tip to the NACA 64A006.6 NACA 64A203 (used on the F-15), but unlike the F-15 which provides no effective lift at the root, the F-14’s has lift coefficient of 0.2. Add the 40% increase in lift experienced when going from 16 to 25 deg AoA a as a result of the body-glove vortex flow lift…… Do you need more evidence?As for what did i modify on my test chart, well it was an F-4E STR chart which i tweaked with the F-14A Ps curve and added the 20% increase in STR (of the F-14 VS F-4E) as documented by NASA. It still doesn’t tell the whole picture as the F-14 and the F-4 have very different aerodynamic properties especially on the left side of the diagram.
- Mike Metcalf
Lovin’ it
-
Oh man,
I should work at my cockpit to come to an end, but the link you mentioned has excited me so much, I couldn’t stop reading :D.
Yeah, lot of Tomcat-Lovers here, I’m not the only one. Very detailed informations in those threads, but not so easy to understand all the techincal infos, if English isn’t your native language.
Are there any real or retired pilots in this forum, who had flown this bird? Could help alot with the model. Don’t know if flightsimulation is so interesting, if you had flown the real fighters, but maybe there are some ex-pilots in this forum. I’m to new at this forum to know all its members.
-
On facebook, the famous Dave “Bio” Baranek can answer to questions.
Also, I’m member of this group, there is a lot of crew chief, ground crew, and former Tomcat’s pilots here. Join the group !
https://www.facebook.com/groups/53360498213/ -
SPOILER ALERT (pun intended :))
Some angles
Spoiler hinges with shaft:
Details:
Spoilers and their assembly hinges rotate on the shaft that will barely be visible but is important for rigging.
Hinge detail
To move this development away from the wing was necessary to ensure symmetry and make the alignment process easier. Spoilers will get some more detail but not much as the whole assembly including the flap will take up around 3000 tris easily - then again this is the most important element of the entire aircraft (the wing that is).
You can see the flap hinges there as well partly covered by movable plates partly visible through the spoiler gap. There are 5 hinges in total. Flap and the lower cove door which swings up when the flap is retracted will follow…
-
On facebook, the famous Dave “Bio” Baranek can answer to questions.
Also, I’m member of this group, there is a lot of crew chief, ground crew, and former Tomcat’s pilots here. Join the group !
https://www.facebook.com/groups/53360498213/Now I’m a member too (hope so must wait for the confirmation). Thank’s for the advice!
Sorry stingray, don’t want to fly off on the tangent. I will shutdown now :D.
P.S:
Unbelievable how detailed and complex your design of the aircraft is. Couldn’t wait to fly it. O.k. still have a lot to do with the pit. I look forward to the maiden flight.
Originaly I want to use the Huey and as background music “Green River” from CCR. Maybe it will be the Tomcat and the Topgun theme :mrgreen:
-
FLAPS
Since the wings don’t get any easier or simpler following the spoilers I used the motivation and carried right onto the flap assembly. This includes working cove- and eyebrow door. Slat will follow soon but is a bit tricky since it doesn’t rotate on a shaft but is ‘rolled out’ using a hinge rolling over a cog. Clearly something that has to be animated and cannot be rotated in 2D.
Full flap assembly all at zero deg:
Bottom side, hinges visible through the various parts of the cove door:
Flap up at zero, eyebrow door at default position. The eyebrow door seals the gap between the spoiler edges and the downward slope of the flap when it’s fully retracted:
Flap maneuver positions (0-10deg), eyebrow door is up filling the gap, cove door still open:
Flap down (10-35deg), eyebrow door closed, cove door closed:
The doors, flap hinges and flap shaft in detail:
Oh and if anyone is wondering the topside hinges are for the hydraulic actuators that push the flap down. I’m actually not 100% certain yet if the flap ‘only’ rotates or also moves back with the entire assembly thereby moving along two axis down and back. What is for sure is that the flap rotates around the axis you see above.
-
Don’t forget wing flex.
-
Don’t forget wing flex.
Care to elaborate on that Pumpy? First off I didn’t know it was supported so great to hear it. Second how would that be modeled visually? Would it also apply to the tails? I remember many times seeing the stabs start to shake during high-g maneuvers.
For now I’m still busy with aligning the different parts of the wing and finalizing flap and spoilers including hinge points and some hydraulics.
-
This should give you an idea:
-
Flutter and Wing flex DOF’s exist in 3ds MAX Falcon Exporter F4DOF Helper.
How they work and how to setup… is a good question…
-
Some updates about the wings. After playing around with the cove door, eyebrow door and spoilers I basically had to redesign and relocate almost all vertices of these objects. Upside is they now fit and work together nicely and the shape resembles real life more. Not because I’m so obsessed about the details but out of necessity so the parts have freedom of movement and work together.
Flap hinge detail, it’s the inner hinge. It doesn’t have a cover and sits a bit lower than the others.
Hinge number two sits even lower and is smaller than the others. When retracted it is unvisible under the fixed part of the spoiler assembly. The cove door is split at that hinge.
Center hinge is one of three that has a sliding top cover attached to the assembly of the wing/flap. It rests on the hinge top and moves accordingly.
Hinge #3, uncovered hence the gap in the spoiler
Zoomed out:
Viewed from below with flap hidden. You can see the closed cove door meeting the spoiler assembly. Almost invisible but modelled: The 4 moving spoilers, according to the F-14D NATOPS flight manual, move down 4 degrees to meet the cove door when the flap goes down beyond 25 degrees. The outer fixed parts of the spoiler assembly have matching shape:
And full view with spoilers 3 and 4 in upright ‘airbrake’ landing configuration:
Things left to do:
-
split flap into main and auxiliary part
-
adapt wing body and slat
-
integrate eyebrow door into flaps
Will post some more renders and detailed ‘drawings’ in the coming days…
Total tris for the complete wings: 14.800. Yeah, a lot. Expected that. Aiming for below 10K when finished. The wings will make up more than 40% of all tris once it’s done like I said before.
Moving surfaces, Baby.
-
-
-
Nice steps ahead!!! Keep on this baby.
Nikos. -