# F-14 vs F-15 vs F-16



## Soren (Oct 22, 2008)

Which is the best fighter in your opinion regardless of track record, based mostly on ability, flight characteristics etc etc..

I know this will be an interesting debate when I will start off by saying I believe the F-14 is the best, and yet it is the only one of the three to be out of service (mostly due to cost maintenance issues).


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 22, 2008)

They each performed the role for which they were designed very well. 

F-15 most dominating
F-14 most innovative
F-16 most cost effective

The F-14 was a fantastic plane but to attain the mantle of "Best" I believe cost, maintenance and longevity must be considered. That makes me like the F-15.

But If I were in a short war had to choose between an air force consisting solely of 500 F-14s or 500 F-15's, I'd have to choose the F-14 cause of the Phoenix missile.

,


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 22, 2008)

Wow. Rather a silly discussion isn't it? Without some operational context, mission need and order of battle this quickly will blur into a debate about "top speed", "range" and "best load-out".

I'll pass.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 23, 2008)

Gotta go with the F-15, especially considering it's >100-to-0 victory ratio. Unfortunately, the F-14 was originally hampered by it's '60's-era TF-30 low bypass-ratio turbofans, which didn't provide enough thrust to make it competitive with contemporary fighters (like the F-15 and -16); it didn't really come into it's own until it (finally) received the engine it should've had from the beginning, the GE F-110, with a 25% increase in dry thrust. The ultimate model of the _Tomcat_, the F-14D, was really too late to have an effect on naval tactics. 

However, if I had to chose an a/c for a 1-v-1 encounter, I would choose the F-15C over a late-model _Tomcat_, even with the Phoenix AIM-54C; for a fighter, the F-15 has the most advanced ECM suite of any a/c flying (with the exception of the F-22), so I believe the on-board AN/ALQ-135 EIC of the _Eagle_ would probably defeat the terminal guidance radar of the _Phoenix_, giving the -15 the chance to hit the _Tomcat_ with it's AIM-120C AMRAAM's at +/- 50 NM. If the F-15 fails to jam or spoof the _Phoenix_, it should be able to outmaneuver the Mach 6 Phoenix before impact.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 23, 2008)

>>it should be able to outmaneuver the Mach 6 Phoenix before impact.<<

For me that s the crux of the matter... an F-14 with 4 phoenix missiles is pretty damn menacing but the Phoenix is large and old school. Could the F-15 out maneuver a phoenix?

"Should" is not an answer.. what do the sims say?


.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 23, 2008)

The Phoenix is not a fighter-v-fighter weapon. It was designed to intercept slow and non-manueverable Soviet Bombers. While it does have a high max speed, that speed is NOT maintained during its continous flight. The Phoenix employs a maintainer motor once it reaches max-E altitude. Any fighter that detects the incoming missile has a high probability of outmaneuvering the Phoenix, since it was not designed to be a dogfighting missile.

Couple this with early problems Hughes encountered in mission readiness, the standdown of Soviet bombers and there is a reason that F-14Ds were not often seen loaded up with 6 Phoenix missiles as a typical loadout.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 23, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> I'll pass.



A wise man once said that he would pass. 

Did you say something Matt??? Or are you contributing??


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 23, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> The Phoenix is not a fighter-v-fighter weapon. It was designed to intercept slow and non-manueverable Soviet Bombers. While it does have a high max speed, that speed is NOT maintained during its continous flight. The Phoenix employs a maintainer motor once it reaches max-E altitude. Any fighter that detects the incoming missile has a high probability of outmaneuvering the Phoenix, since it was not designed to be a dogfighting missile.
> 
> Couple this with early problems Hughes encountered in mission readiness, the standdown of Soviet bombers and there is a reason that F-14Ds were not often seen loaded up with 6 Phoenix missiles as a typical loadout.



Well said, Matt (as usual); in fact, the typical loadout for a late-model F-14 (B's D's) was four AIM-7F Sparrows and/or AMRAAM's on the fuselage stations, and four AIM-9M's on the glove pylons. The Phoenix was actually pretty useless for fighter-v-fighter combat, especially under current ROE. 

And even during the height of the Cold War, a 6-Phoenix loadout was very rare; the A's typically carried four AIM-54's on the fuselage pallets, and Sparrows Sidewinders on the glove pylons.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 23, 2008)

Therefor the thread is valid...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 23, 2008)

Did the F-14D incorporate a fly-by-wire system? 

And when was FBW introduced on the F-15?

How do the control systems compare to those of the F-16?


----------



## Soren (Oct 23, 2008)

How about we take a look at the thrust to weight and aerodynamic properties of the a/c.

The key point is that you imagine a match up, the a/c facing each other in combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2008)

The problem is all 3 aircraft have varying roles and if flown properly should never see each other in close quarters.

F-15 for me.


----------



## Soren (Oct 23, 2008)

Well in war different type a/c meet each other all the time, regardless if their flown properly or not 

Let me create a scenario:

Two bombers escorted by two F-15's are about to be intercepted by two F-14's fitted with 6x sidewinders and 2x Phoenix missiles. 

At 80km away the Tomcats lock on to the bombers and fire off their two Phoenix missiles at them. The F-15's, armed with 8x AIM-7 Sparrow missiles peel off to intercept the Tomcats. The Bombers try to avoid the Phoenix missiles by the help of ECM.

The F-14's F-15's get within 20km, a wild dogfight is soon to follow, who wins ? Or should I say who have the odds with or against them ?


----------



## Soren (Oct 23, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Wow. Rather a silly discussion isn't it? Without some operational context, mission need and order of battle this quickly will blur into a debate about "top speed", "range" and "best load-out".
> 
> I'll pass.



You're right, and so I added the scenario for ou guys to think about.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> The F-14's F-15's get within 20km, a wild dogfight is soon to follow, who wins ? Or should I say who have the odds with or against them ?



Providing that the F-14s didn't get splashed first by the Sparrows, I'd go with the F-15s, but this will depend on who got their missiles off first and who had the better ECMs to counter the missiles. I do know in exercises conducted between the USAF and the USN the F-15s did come out on top most of the time in simulated combat scenarios. If I remember correctly in 1998 USAF F-15s shot down F-14s 3 to 1 during RIMPAC.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well in war different type a/c meet each other all the time, regardless if their flown properly or not


Ahhhh, NO.

My point is one should kill the other miles before coming into visual range, if flown correctly.


----------



## airboiy (Oct 23, 2008)

wow
if it came to the wire, f-16 would maul either of the a/c
but the eagle might be a close second, even if flown correctly


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2008)

airboiy said:


> wow
> if it came to the wire, f-16 would maul either of the a/c
> but the eagle might be a close second, even if flown correctly


And what do you base that brillant deduction on?!?!?!?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 23, 2008)

airboiy said:


> wow
> if it came to the wire, f-16 would maul either of the a/c
> but the eagle might be a close second, even if flown correctly



I doubt it; the F-15 has a better thrust-to-weight ratio (though not a better instantaneous turn rate), a better radar system (the latest F-15C MSIP's are getting the AN/ALQ-63(V)3 AESA radar), and a better ECM suite. The F-16 probably wouldn't get close enough to the F-15 to do any damage, unless the _Eagle_ pilot really screws up. Even in a knife fight, it would be close . . . . .


----------



## Amsel (Oct 23, 2008)

Tomcat for me. Being able to deploy and rearm anywhere in the world is a big plus.


----------



## renrich (Oct 23, 2008)

Interesting discussion. Keep up the good work. The Tomcat was not fly by wire which I heard that some pilots preferred.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 23, 2008)

renrich said:


> Interesting discussion. Keep up the good work. The Tomcat was not fly by wire which I heard that some pilots preferred.



And neither is the F-15; AFAIK, only the F-16 and 5th-gen fighters have FBW.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 23, 2008)

The Eagle wasn't originally FBW, all models retain the original mechanical controls, in addition to the later introduced FBW systems. (not sure when FBW was added, and if theye were full FBW or simpler computer assisted controls, hence my earlier question) And it can be flown satisfactorily with manual controls.

The F-16 was designed for FBW, and has no manual controls. It was designed with "relaxed static stability" which significantly enhanced maneuverability.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 23, 2008)

Amsel said:


> Tomcat for me. Being able to deploy and rearm anywhere in the world is a big plus.



I assume you're referring to the carrier capability. Technically, both the F-15 (also as an alternative to the F-14) and F-16 had variants that were proposed as carrier aircraft for the USN, but they went for the F-18 instead.

Of course the F-14 is the only one of these 3 that was used operationally on carriers.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 23, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I assume you're referring to the carrier capability. Technically, both the F-15 (also as an alternative to the F-14) and F-16 had variants that were proposed as carrier aircraft for the USN, but they went for the F-18 instead.
> 
> Of course the F-14 is the only one of these 3 that was used operationally on carriers.



kk, was the F-16XL the carrier variant? Or was it earlier than that? I know the XL was entered into the dual-role fighter competition in the early '80's (which the Strike Eagle won), but I don't remember a carrier variant of the -16.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I assume you're referring to the carrier capability. Technically, both the F-15 (also as an alternative to the F-14) and F-16 had variants that were proposed as carrier aircraft for the USN, but they went for the F-18 instead.
> 
> Of course the F-14 is the only one of these 3 that was used operationally on carriers.


and it was actually the only one of the 3 that was actually underpowered in its original configuration.


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 23, 2008)

Since I am a jet idiot, what is Fly By Wire?


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 23, 2008)

No control cables from pedals/control column/throttle. All digital signals wherein pilot input is measured, digitized and thusly interpreted by individual flight control processors at each surface/engine/propeller.

Or just pretend its magic.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 24, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> No control cables from pedals/control column/throttle. All digital signals wherein pilot input is measured, digitized and thusly interpreted by individual flight control processors at each surface/engine/propeller.
> 
> Or just pretend its magic.



LOL!

Matt, you do have a way of putting things!

All 5th-gen fighters (and even some bombers and airliners) have FBW flight control systems; in this era when it basically comes down to a computer that's actually flying the a/c, and the pilot is there to tell it what to do, it's pretty much the only way to build a/c now. It's also a way (though some pilots would argue differently) to prevent a pilot from doing something REALLY stupid, like getting his a/c into an inverted flat spin; if the computer, for whatever reason, decides that the input the pilot is giving it through the stick is bound to lead to disaster, it will not perform that function (like performing a reverse Immelman at 100' altitude). The pilot CAN override the flight control computer (or FCC), but it's usually not wise to do so; the FCC usually knows what the a/c is capable (or, in this case, not capable) of doing.

My father-in-law used to fly Boeing 747-400's, which had glass cockpits and FBW, and they were literally capable of landing themselves on the runway in any weather, day or night; he said the pilot could assume control of the a/c whenever he wanted to but, 99% of the time, there was no reason to, it was easier to just let the plane land itself.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2008)

F-14/AIM -54 was a system never tested in combat, so i am at a losss as to how it can be concluded that a) it was a failure as a weapon system, b) it was only effective against soviet bombers....

During the 1989 Gulf of Sidra incident against the Libyan MiG-23s, it commonly misreported that they were engaged by Phoenix missiles....not true, in fact they were shot down by tight turning Tomcats hot on their tails firing sidewinders...

I would wager any day that the Tomcat has a competitive power to weight and is a very manouverable platform in the horizontal plane as well.

I would also argue that the main reason for the incomplete Phoenix loadouts was more related to the cost of such a weapons load, rather than any doubts about its effectiveness. Phoenix missiles are expensive little buggers....you dont go lugging them around the sky unless you have a need to


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

> I would wager any day that the Tomcat has a competitive power to weight and is a very manouverable platform in the horizontal plane as well.



Completely agreed Parsifal. Infact the F-14 is probably the best of the three in the horizontal plane by a good amount. The high AR wings, and te ability to control the sweep in accordance to airspeed will give it an advantage in the production of lift drag, enabling higher lift to be generated while at the same time reducing drag.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 24, 2008)

For this comparison are we talking about the F-15C, or is the Strike Eagle being included?


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

Every type included KK.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Completely agreed Parsifal. Infact the F-14 is probably the best of the three in the horizontal plane by a good amount. The high AR wings, and te ability to control the sweep in accordance to airspeed will give it an advantage in the production of lift drag, enabling higher lift to be generated while at the same time reducing drag.


Spoke to my father in law about this - he was a production F-15 test pilot. His comments to me was the F-15 could out accelerate and out turn the F-14. He felt the F-14's radar had some advantages but also felt the F-14 was more or a good "bomber killer" more than anything else. As far as maneuvability, he said there was no comparison, the F-15 has it hands down.

I guess the F-15 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and is also a 9G airframe. According to dad the F-14 is a 6G fighter.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 24, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> kk, was the F-16XL the carrier variant? Or was it earlier than that? I know the XL was entered into the dual-role fighter competition in the early '80's (which the Strike Eagle won), but I don't remember a carrier variant of the -16.



The VFAX was the USN version of the F-16. IIRC the XL was the delta wing variant.

Vought died (as a prime) because President Sol Love (as a former engineer) believed two things - one the F-16 was a better ship than the F-18 and, two he believed the Navy would comply with the congressional mandate that the Navy buy the winner of the USAF fly off between the F-16 and F-18.

1976.


----------



## buzzard (Oct 24, 2008)

How one defines "flown correctly" is more dependent on context than doctrine. The majority of F-15 kills have been made by the IAF, and few, if any, of these kills were BVR. Given their success, few would argue that the IAF did not fly their Eagles 'correctly'...

As others have already mentioned, the AIM-54 is not a dogfighting weapon. Nor has its rare use in combat by the USN been at all successful. Two AIM-54 were launched against Iraqi MiG-25s during Desert Storm (IIRC) with no success. The Iranian AF claims to have used it successfully during the Iran-Iraq war, but confirming the details of these claims is problematic at best...

That said, the F-14's abilities are not contingent on the relative efficiency of the AIM-54. While the F-15 may have an edge in ultimate performance and avionics, the F-14 has the advantage of two crew members to operate the systems and scan the skies. These advantages may not be crucial in arenas where the US has overwhelming dominance, as in recent conflicts, but in a more hard-fought and chaotic contest with a comparative equal, they could well prove decisive. If the Viet Nam war taught the US military anything, it is that the enemy is not bound to comply with your 'correct' doctrine...

What happens in a roll-over like the Gulf Wars, or controlled exercise like Red Flag, is not necessarily what would happen in a hard-fought and chaotic close-quarter battle with a determined and technologically and tactically resourceful enemy. Radar and IFF are not infallible, and like all technologies, are vulnerable to countermeasures. Current BVR airfighting doctrine has not rendered the Mk I Eyeball obsolete, and in this department, the Tomcat has the clear advantage. The Eagle's slight performance advantage is not great enough to be decisive.

It's as much about context as it is 'numbers'.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 24, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Spoke to my father in law about this - he was a production F-15 test pilot. His comments to me was the F-15 could out accelerate and out turn the F-14. He felt the F-14's radar had some advantages but also felt the F-14 was more or a good "bomber killer" more than anything else. As far as maneuvability, he said there was no comparison, the F-15 has it hands down.
> 
> I guess the F-15 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and is also a 9G airframe. According to dad the F-14 is a 6G fighter.



I just had a similar conversation. Except for the fact that the F-15C has a much lower wing loading, much higher thrust to weight ratio, is faster, can climb higher and accelerate in the climb much faster than the F-14, he says the F-14 isn't bad - just slow and heavy.

He did say that a.) you could store an F-14 in a smaller space, and b.) had a better radar. Do you suppose he was being sarcastic?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I just had a similar conversation. Except for the fact that the F-15C has a much lower wing loading, much higher thrust to weight ratio, is faster, can climb higher and accelerate in the climb much faster than the F-14, he says the F-14 isn't bad - just slow and heavy.


As he put it, the F-15 was a half a generation a head of the F-14


drgondog said:


> He did say that a.) you could store an F-14 in a smaller space, and b.) had a better radar. Do you suppose he was being sarcastic?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 24, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As he put it, the F-15 was a half a generation a head of the F-14



The F-15 and F-16 were the truiumph of John Boyd's energy manueverability thesis - he won that war and lost his career but saved USAF fighter design from the 'do all' politicians at the Pentagon.


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

Hey guys, just talked to a friend of mine, a former Navy pilot, regarding this and he said that the F-14 turns better than all the rest hands down. He says the F-14 capable of sustaining 8.5G's until fuel runs out, although this isn't recommended and the airframe would have to undergo inspection afterwards. He says that at 350 knots the F-14 can pull 8.5 Gs while the Mig29, F-16, F-15 and F-18 can only pull about 8 Gs at the same speed. And like I mentioned earlier he states that the variable sweep wing gives the F-14 excellent manuverability for an aircraft so large and heavy, esp. in the horizontal, permitting this interceptor to also dogfight against the lighter USAAF fighters.

Furthermore the F-14 uses a lift-body design, giving it even greater lift in turns. He also said that the F-14 has been successfully outmanuvering smaller and lighter adversaries all through it's service life despite the fact that often it is nearly twice as heavy. 

Part of the secret is the computer controlled variable geometry wings which automatically adjust for all flight aspects. This is a great help as it makes sure that drag is as low as possible when needed and lift is as high as possible when needed. 

Another secret, he told me is its low wing loading for its size. Like the F-16, F-15, and many of the newer MiG and Sukoi types the F-14 obtains a sizable fraction of its lift from the design of the fuselage (The lift body design), keeping "wing loading" low. 

According to him the F-15 climbs better though, but the F-14 will climb with an F-16 and out-accellerate most fighters in level flight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Hey guys, just talked to a friend of mine, a former Navy pilot, regarding this and he said that the F-14 turns better than all the rest hands down, being able to sustain 8.5G's until fuel runs out, while the others, including the F-15, can maintain 8G's. Furthermore he mentioned that the variable sweep wing gives it excellent manuverability for an aircraft so large and heavy, esp. in the horizontal, permitting this interceptor to also dogfight against the lighter USAAF fighters.
> 
> Furthermore the F-14 uses a lift-body design, giving it even greater lift in turns. He also said that the F-14 has been successfully outmanuvering smaller and lighter adversaries all through it's service life despite the fact that often it is nearly twice as heavy.
> 
> ...


Don't know who your buddy is or what squadron he was in, I could tell you the F-15 is a 9G airplane, read "F-15 Eagle engaged" By Steve Davies Page 82. Additionally the -1s show configurations where the F-15 could sustain 9gs. The F-14 has a higher wing loading and lower thrust to weight ratio than the F-15, go to any web site (Wiki) and it will show that. It was an "excellent" machine with "excellent" maneuverability - the F-15 is just more maneuverable.


The F-14 "was" a great aircraft and is still worthy of front line operation but as stated the F-15 is at least a half a generation a ahead of the F-14, especially comparing it to the later block "C" models.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Hey guys, just talked to a friend of mine, a former Navy pilot, regarding this and he said that the F-14 turns better than all the rest hands down, being able to sustain 8.5G's until fuel runs out while the others, including the F-15, can maintain 8G's. Furthermore he mentioned that the variable sweep wing gives it excellent manuverability for an aircraft so large and heavy, esp. in the horizontal, permitting this interceptor to also dogfight against the lighter USAAF fighters.
> 
> *Permitting versus winning are different concepts*
> 
> ...



Soren - it does not do well in Red Flag exercises. In fact, it has not for 20 years. The USN quit sending F-14s to play with USAF as the F-18 started getting to the fleet. There was a reason for that - and it wasn't superiority of F-14 as a dogfighter.

The WL of the F-15 is about the same as the A-4 and the A-4 generally whipped F-14 ass in subsonic turn where the F-14 variable geometry actually helped it (other than take off and landing). 

The F-14 is slower at both altitude and the deck, has a lower ceiling, has a T/W ratio that is 25% less than the F-15C and 25% less than the F-16. The F-14 has a T/W fully loaded at about .6 where the F-15C is .85, and a combat T/W of .9 to the F-15 1.15. Usually those deficiencies will hurt you in both the horizontal and the vertical.

If not then a B-26 should easily whip a 109 in both the vertical and horizontal.

The only thing the F-14 can do better is see a threat earlier with its bigger and better radar...and land on a carrier.

BTW the published wing loading for the F-14 is approximately 50% higher than either the A-4 or F-15C. The straklets gave improved flow into the wing and engine inlets but it is insignificant relative to energy manueverability - except very possibly near the stall.

As to G capability both the -15 and -16 airframe capability exceeds the pilots capability... both > 9G.

Just out of curiosity, how long has your friend been out of the Navy and when was the last time he took on an F-15C in exercises?


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

He says the F-14 capable of sustaining 8.5G's until fuel runs out, although this isn't recommended and the airframe would have to undergo inspection afterwards. The F-15 can probably pull more G's for s shorter period of time, I don't doubt that, but according to him it can't indefinitely sustain as high a G-force as the F-14. He said that at 350 knots the F-14 can pull 8.5 Gs while the Mig29, F-16, F-15 and F-18 can only pull about 8 Gs at the same speed.


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Just out of curiosity, how long has your friend been out of the Navy and when was the last time he took on an F-15C in exercises?



From the early eightees until the early ninetees IIRC.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

_"The F-14A Tomcat was powered by two massive TF30-414A Afterburning Turbofans with over 40,000 lb Total Thrust. While the engines were quite powerful for their time, *the F-14 was still considered underpowered. And it is due to this very power-plant, that the F-14 was considered a poor dogfighter. The reason being that whenever the AoA of the aircraft changed rapidly, the engine would go into a compressor stall - a state where the engine stops the intake of air and flames out. This problem can be seen when the F-14s go out for DACT. None of the Tomcats carry AIM-54 and ACMI pods are limited to inner rails only.*

The problem was later corrected in the F-14B and subsequent models, by the use of two F110-GE400 Afterburning Turbofans with over 54,000 lb Total Thrust. These engines not only gave the F-14 the excess power, but also made it a potent dogfighter."_

F-14 Tomcat Fighters Air Systems Defense News | Defence Forum | Military Pictures | Weapons - DefenceTalk

Even re-engined the F-15 still puts out more power than the F-14B.


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

> BTW the published wing loading for the F-14 is approximately 50% higher than either the A-4 or F-15C.



True, but the F-14's wings are more lift efficient, creating more lift pr. area when folded out. The span-loading, which is a good indicator of turn performance according to some as an a/c rides on a cylindrical tube of air, suggests that the F-14 is the best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

Again I'll state - I was on a RIMPAC excersize and was told the AF F-15 knocked down F-14s at the rate of 3 to 1. This is with the Navy attempting to overwhelm the F-15 with superior numbers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> True, but the F-14's wings are more lift efficient, creating more lift pr. area when folded out. The span-loading, which is a good indicator of turn performance according to some as an a/c rides on a cylindrical tube of air, suggests that the F-14 is the best.


Not compared to an F-15 when its putting out almost 5000 pounds more thrust. Again an F-14 can not out turn an F-15, especially the earlier F-14As. And I'd like you to show HOW the F-14 carries a more efficient wing?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 24, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't know who your buddy is or what squadron he was in, I could tell you the F-15 is a 9G airplane, read "F-15 Eagle engaged" By Steve Davies Page 82. Additionally the -1s show configurations where the F-15 could sustain 9gs. The F-14 has a higher wing loading and lower thrust to weight ratio than the F-15, go to any web site (Wiki) and it will show that. It was an "excellent" machine with "excellent" maneuverability - the F-15 is just more maneuverable.
> 
> 
> The F-14 "was" a great aircraft and is still worthy of front line operation but as stated the F-15 is at least a half a generation a ahead of the F-14, especially comparing it to the later block "C" models.



That is also the reason the -15 is still being produced, 35 years after it's first flight, and the F-14 is not; the F-15 was designed FROM THE OUTSET to be more maneuverable than any other a/c on the planet and, to this day, it is STILL more maneuverable than 90% of the fighters out there (including some 5th-gen fighters, especially with the 29,000+ lbs. PW-100-229 engines). 

And, as drgondog pointed out, the maximum g-loading for either a/c is rather academic anyway, as the pilot can only tolerate a few seconds of 9G+ maneuvering; the a/c definitely is more "capable" than the pilot in this case.


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

> Again an F-14 can not out turn an F-15, especially the earlier F-14As.



Well how can you state that as fact, do you really know it to be true ?



> And I'd like you to show HOW the F-14 carries a more efficient wing?



Easy, the F-14's wing can change sweep and is of a much higher Aspect ratio, and a higher aspect ratio means a higher CLmax lower Cdi, making it a more efficient wing FLYBOYJ.


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

Like I said earlier span-loading is a good indicator of turn performance according to some as an a/c basically rides on a cylindrical tube of air, so lets look at the span loading of the a/c.

Span loading of the a/c:

F-14: 27,700 kg / 19.55 m = 1,416.87 kg/m 
F-15: 20,200 kg / 13.05 m = 1,547.89 kg/m
F-16: 12,000 kg / 9.8 m = 1,224.48 kg/m
F-18: 21,320 kg / 13.62 m = 1,565.34 kg/m

Seems the F-16 beats the pack but the F-14 comes in as second.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 24, 2008)

Hmmm, I rather have 2 F16's for the price of one F15 or 1 F14......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Like I said earlier span-loading is a good indicator of turn performance according to some as an a/c basically rides on a cylindrical tube of air, so lets look at the span loading of the a/c.
> 
> Span loading of the a/c:
> 
> ...



Why don't you look in the POH of each aircraft and it will tell you the exact data you are looking for.



Marcel said:


> Hmmm, I rather have 2 F16's for the price of one F15 or 1 F14......



And for some operators that was the reason why the F-16 was chosen over the F-15.



_"Even today, the F-14A Tomcat is still a potent fighter. *Against aircraft such as the F-4 or the MiG-23 "Flogger" the F-14A would have few problems in maintaining air-to-air superiority, but its rate and radius of turn, thrust-to-weight ratio, and high-angle of attack capabilities would leave it at a serious disadvantage against later aircraft such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29 Fulcrum, or Su-27 Flanker. Nevertheless, its BVR kill capacity is still unmatched*._

Service of F-14 Tomcat with US Navy

As stated, the F-14 is best viewed as a bomber killer with some "good" air-to-air capabilities but against the F-15 it is at a disadvantage.


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

Why do you quote facts about the F-14A FLYBOYJ ? The F-14B is vastly better in the horizontal than the F-14A, and also better than the F-15 according to most I've read and the people I've talked to.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

> Why don't you look in the POH of each aircraft and it will tell you the exact data you are looking for.



Don't have it FLYBOYJ, and I doubt most people do


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Why do you quote facts about the F-14A FLYBOYJ ? The F-14B is vastly better in the horizontal than the F-14A, and also better than the F-15 according to most I've read and the people I've talked to.


Vastly better? Come on Soren, what's vastly better? If the F-14 was so much better why did the navy stop sending the aircraft to William Tell, RIMPAC and other exercises even *AFTER* they were re-gngined? I was at a RIMPAC exercise as a participant and was told the -14s got its @ss kicked *by Navy people!!!!! *and fighting in the horizontal is something done 60 years ago. If you're fighting on the horizontal in a modern jet either you're a 3rd world fighter pilot with minimum training or you really screwed up - and who have you really spoken to? One Tomcat driver who flew in the 80s and probably never got to fly an F-14B? Look at the stats on the airplanes, the F-15 still puts out more thrust, has a lower wing loading and a higher thrust to weight ratio. It was designed as a fighter from the ground up and was on the drawing board when the first F-14s was being delivered.

As far as the manuals? Look on E bay, they're on there - I have access to an F-15 manual but I can't scan or copy it.

*"The overall thrust-to-weight ratio at maximum load is around 0.56 to 1, which does not compare favorably with the F-15A's ratio of 0.85 to 1."*

F-14 Tomcat: Definition from Answers.com


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

*Here's more with the F-14B and D included!*

Specifications (F-15C Eagle)

Data from USAF fact sheet,[64] Jane's All the World's Aircraft,[65] Davies 2002,[66] GlobalSecurity[67]

General characteristics

Crew: 1 
Length: 63 ft 9 in (19.43 m) 
Wingspan: 42 ft 10 in (13.05 m) 
Height: 18 ft 6 in (5.63 m) 
*Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²) *
Airfoil: NACA 64A006.6 root, NACA 64A203 tip 
Empty weight: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg) 
Loaded weight: 44,500 lb (20,200 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 68,000 lb (30,845 kg) 
Powerplant: 2× Pratt Whitney F100-100, -220 or -229 afterburning turbofans 
Dry thrust: 17,450 lbf (77.62 kN) each 
Thrust with afterburner: 25,000 lbf for -220; 29,000 lbf for -229 (111.2 kN for -220; 129.0 kN for -229) each 
Performance

Maximum speed:

*High altitude: Mach 2.5+ (1,650 mph, 2,660 km/h) *Low altitude: Mach 1.2 (900 mph, 1,450 km/h) 
*Combat radius: 1,061 nmi *(1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission 
Ferry range: 3,450 mi (3,000 nmi, 5,550 km) with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks 
Service ceiling 65,000 ft (20,000 m) 
Rate of climb: >50,000 ft/min (254 m/s) 
*Wing loading: 73.1 lb/ft² (358 kg/m²) *
*Thrust/weight: 1.12 (-220), 1.30 (-229)* 


Type F-14A *F-14B (F-14A+) F-14D *
First Fligth 21 Dec 1970 Sept 1986 Mar 1990 
Wingspan (unswept) 64 ft 1.5 in 64 ft 1.5 in 64 ft 1.5 in 
Wingspan (swept) 38 ft 2.5 in 38 ft 2.5 in 38 ft 2.5 in 
Lenght 62 ft 8 in 62 ft 8 in 62 ft 8 in 
Height 16 ft 16 ft 16 ft 
*Wing Area 565 sqft 565 sqft 565 sqft *
Empty Weight 40,104 pounds 41,780 pounds 43,735 pounds 
Max. Weight 72,000 pounds 74,349 pounds 74,349 pounds 
Powerplants 2 P&W TF-30-P-414A 2 GE F-110-GE-400 2 GE F-110-GE-400 
Max. Thrust 34,154 lbs 56,400 lbs 56,400 lbs 
*Wing Loading 92 psf 94 psf 96 psf *
*Max. Speed 1,544 mph 1,544 mph 1,544 mph *
Mach 2.38 Mach 2.38 Mach 2.38 
Ceiling 50,000+ ft 53,000+ ft 53,000+ ft 
*Range 1,730 nm *2,050 nm 2,050 nm

From Wiki - *Thrust/weight: 0.91 **THIS IS FOR THE F-14 "D"*


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 24, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It was designed as a fighter from the ground up and was on the drawing board when the first F-14s was being delivered.



It all comes down to what each a/c was designed for: the F-14 was designed FROM THE OUTSET with Fleet Defense in mind, which means shooting down bombers, and other less maneuverable attack a/c, attempting to destroy US Naval assets. I believe the primary adversary the F-14 was originally designed to counter were Tu-16's Tu-22/M/26 missle bombers, which were medium-sized tactical bombers for use primarily against the US Navy, especially large surface targets, like aircraft carriers. There was no need to make the F-14 very maneuverable, as they would be flying against much less maneuverable Soviet bombers. 

The F-15, on the other hand, was designed from the get-go to acheive maintain air superiority against any current and future Soviet fighter. Therefore, it was designed with exceptionally low wing-loading, and exceptionally high excess thrust (especially for the '70's).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> It all comes down to what each a/c was designed for: the F-14 was designed FROM THE OUTSET with Fleet Defense in mind, which means shooting down bombers, and other less maneuverable attack a/c, attempting to destroy US Naval assets. I believe the primary adversary the F-14 was originally designed to counter were Tu-16's Tu-22/M/26's missle bombers, which were medium-sized tactical bombers for use primarily against the US Navy, especially large surface targets, like aircraft carriers. There was no need to make the F-14 very maneuverable, as they would be flying against much less maneuverable Soviet bombers.
> 
> The F-15, on the other hand, was designed from the get-go to acheive maintain air superiority against any current and future Soviet fighter. Therefore, it was designed with exceptionally low wing-loading, and exceptionally high excess thrust (especially for the '70's).


BINGO!


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 24, 2008)

Ugh... here comes another meltdown.


----------



## renrich (Oct 24, 2008)

I don't claim to have the tech expertise of most of you, but have always liked the F14 a great deal and have at least one good book about the design and development of the Tomcat(as well as the F15.) Also had a long conversation with a Tomcat driver at an airshow in (believe it or not) Gunnison, CO. The book states that F14 was designed at first as a kind of "sniper" with a lot of loiter capability. To lie in wait for enemy bombers like the Backfire and shoot them down from long range with the Phoenix. When the Navy pilots began to turn and burn with the Tomcat it was found that the PW engine it was equipped with did not handle well the sudden and frequent throttle inputs. Thus the eventual switch to the GE engine. I have read that the F14 performance is not much degraded by the weapon stores because the weapons are carried conformally(in the tunnel) whereas weapons carried under wing like the F15 and F16 and F18 significantly impact performance. Can youall illuminate that factor. I still theorise that a newly manufactured Strike Tomcat would have served our Navy better than the F18 E-F.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2008)

I cant compete with any of the experience here, so im going to do the smart thing and respect it. I do know that the in the RIMPAC excercises I attnded in the early 80's, the F-14 was not considered to be just a bomber killer, or anything inferior....in fact the USN guys, and the RAN PWOs I worked with/for viewed the ship as the "queen of the battlefield"

I remeber at one part of one excercise, they downgraded the performace and limited the maximum engagement ranges of the Tomcats defending Constellation (I think....my memory is starting to fade). The attacking A-4s were given some standoff capability. With those paparameters injected into the excercise, our A-4s managed to slip past and disable the carrier, which was then finished off by an Oberon submarine.

However, until the excercise was modified to significantly downgrade the performance of the Tomcats, we could not even get close.....there was never any talk of the Phoenix being second rate then. We, as the "opposing" force, knew what was going to happen to our strikes.

Against the F-111s it was much closer and interesting . Again the F-111s were assumed to possess stand off weponary (something they did eventually acquire)......I remember this was the only time I saw F-111s going supersonic at a height of about 60 feet....but thats another story.......IIRC the defending CAP was decoyed (I think it was a USAF squadron of either F-15s or F-4s....i dont recall) alowing the F-11s to race in and deliver the strike. Because of the speed of the F-111s, the F-14s found it difficult to vector to an early point of interception

Anyway, the overriding determinant in successful air combat effectiveness is pilot training and detection. Without either of those, it doesnt really matter what gadgetry or theoretical performance you possess. If you dont know how to use it, you are history..


Here is a U-Tube vid that might help to illustrate


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZyvY3n9GDY_


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2008)

I also thought this reconstruction of the Gulf of Sidra incident might be interesting to some


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSimVE5NyMw_


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 24, 2008)

renrich said:


> Can youall illuminate that factor. I still theorise that a newly manufactured Strike Tomcat would have served our Navy better than the F18 E-F.



You are more or less right about the carriage of weapons on the Tomcat. Also, Soren had a good point early on in this discussion about the body contributing to the overall lift of the a/c, especially with the "tunnel" between the two engines; it was especially good in high A-O-A flight regimes. When it was designed, the F-14 had the most aerodynamically efficient airframe of any a/c in the world, until the advent of the Su-27 family of a/c (yes, even better than the F-15 F-16). Since it was designed to spend a lot of time "loitering", as renrich said, it _had_ to be efficient, if it was to have sufficient range. The carriage of the Phoenix's was somewhat mitigated by the use of aerodynamic "pallets" to carry the missles, which made them more streamlined than if they were just hung by conventional bomb shackles.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 24, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Ugh... here comes another meltdown.



There is a common root cause to most of the meltdowns.....


----------



## drgondog (Oct 24, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> You are more or less right about the carriage of weapons on the Tomcat. Also, Soren had a good point early on in this discussion about the body contributing to the overall lift of the a/c, especially with the "tunnel" between the two engines; it was especially good in high A-O-A flight regimes. When it was designed, the F-14 had the most aerodynamically efficient airframe of any a/c in the world, until the advent of the Su-27 family of a/c (yes, even better than the F-15 F-16). Since it was designed to spend a lot of time "loitering", as renrich said, it _had_ to be efficient, if it was to have sufficient range. The carriage of the Phoenix's was somewhat mitigated by the use of aerodynamic "pallets" to carry the missles, which made them more streamlined than if they were just hung by conventional bomb shackles.



If anybody has the L/D data for both ships the question of aerodynamic efficiency would quickly be solved. Does anyone have this at their fingertips or are we about to get into the usual low fact base arguments?

This is not directed at you DoD.

Strakes were used for all three ships in question and the F-16 also had a variable camber wing to change CLmax (at expense of more drag) in high G manuevers.

Although this is extracted from Wikipedia I can vouch for the information and context personally - the Vought engineers were experimenting with different geometries on the strake and could not achieve a better design than GD.



"Wing and strake configuration
Aerodynamic studies in the early 1960s demonstrated that the phenomenon known as “vortex lift” could be beneficially harnessed by the utilization of highly swept wing configurations to reach higher angles of attack through use of the strong leading edge vortex flow off of a slender lifting surface. Since the F-16 was being optimized for high agility in air combat, GD’s designers chose use a slender cropped-delta wing with a leading edge sweep of 40° and a straight trailing edge. To improve its ability to perform in a wide range of maneuvers, a variable-camber wing with a NACA 64A-204 airfoil was selected. The camber is adjusted through the use of leading-edge and trailing edge flaperons linked to a digital flight control system (FCS) that automatically adjusts them throughout the flight envelope.[39][31]

This vortex lift effect can be increased by the addition of an extension of the leading edge of the wing at its root, the juncture with the fuselage, known as a strake. The strakes act as a sort of additional slender, elongated, short-span, triangular wing running from the actual wing root to a point further forward on the fuselage. Blended fillet-like into the fuselage, including along with the wing root, the strake generates a high-speed vortex that remains attached to the top of the wing as the angle of attack increases, thereby generating additional lift. This allows the aircraft to achieve angles of attack beyond the point at which it would normally stall. The use of strakes also permits the use of a smaller, lower-aspect-ratio wing, which in turn increases roll rates and directional stability, while decreasing aircraft weight. The resulting deeper wingroots also increase structural strength and rigidity, reduce structural weight, and increase internal fuel volume.[40] As a result, the F-16’s high fuel fraction of 0.31 gives it a longer range than other fighter aircraft of similar size and configuration"


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 24, 2008)

drgondog said:


> If anybody has the L/D data for both ships the question of aerodynamic efficiency would quickly be solved. Does anyone have this at their fingertips or are we about to get into the usual low fact base arguments?
> 
> This is not directed at you DoD.



I understand. 

And, no, I do not have those figures handy, I just remember reading that somewhere; I'll see if I can find my source over the weekend, perhaps there will be more there to enlighten me . . . . .


----------



## drgondog (Oct 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> True, but the F-14's wings are more lift efficient, creating more lift pr. area when folded out. The span-loading, which is a good indicator of turn performance according to some as an a/c rides on a cylindrical tube of air, suggests that the F-14 is the best.



If you look closely the area of the F-14 wing is exactly the same extended or tucked. The AR improves when deployed forward and that will help in the subsonic - at low altitude I am not even sure the F-14 can make Mach 1 but confess I am not sure... 

if you wish to hang your thesis on the F-14's low speed flight qualities, have at it. It probably will out turn an F-111 and maybe out turn an F-15 or 16 at speeds below say 350 kts - but because the F-15 and F-16 have more energy and acceleration why does either one have to play by those rules? And this is only a low possibility as the Wing (Lift) loading for both the -15 and -16 is so much better. 

You should have to provide some data and conditions to justify your statement.

Between 400 and 600 kts, Having auto sweep controls while manuevering in the transonic 'would be interesting' as transonic flow is extremely unpredictible at one speed and geometry much less 'in transit'

You said the F-14 wings are more 'Lift Efficient' - you have the L/D for the wing handy? and for the F-16 and F-15?

Can you paint a picture of the 'cylindrical tube of air' and perhaps reference the contrast of the air geometry the F-15 and F-16 that is different? And then maybe slide over and give us a tutorial regarding the benefits 

You mention 'span loading' into your argument. You first provide a definition for what you mean, then do you have data on 'span loading' for all three ships and you can put your definition in context? and you will show how 'span loading' translates to 'turn performance'. This pre supposes that you have not confused 'span loading' with 'lift loading'??


----------



## drgondog (Oct 24, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> I understand.
> 
> And, no, I do not have those figures handy, I just remember reading that somewhere; I'll see if I can find my source over the weekend, perhaps there will be more there to enlighten me . . . . .



The key would be the ability to look at L/D for both swept and extended configs for the F-14 as the L/D for full sweep should suck in comparison to fully deployed.

The second key would be some intelligence regarding the control functions over sweep as a function of airspeed.

I actually am interested. At top Gun the instructors stayed with A4 as the F-4s were phased out and the F-14s were moving in.

The Top Gun instructors delighted in whipping hot rock Lieutenants and Lt Commander butts with the A4 when they 'forgot' and elected to turn with the A-4. The A-4 was fixed geometry, low T/W ration and delighted in whacking F-14s when they forgot about power and energy.

The F-15 has just a slight WL (Lift Load) disadvantage to the A-4 and the F-16, while 20% higher than A-4 (but 20% lower than F-14) has a nifty variable camber wing, and negative stability made it a beast in ACM.

This debate reaaaally needs some more facts as one will never get an Navy guy admitting any Air Force a/c can whip his ass (and vice versa).

Having said that the F-14 was not a 9G a/c with first models and got worse as the weight was piled on. I would have to see what was changed about the F-15C also as its Gross weight increased over the A (primarily fuel). Ditto F-16.

Another observation. The F-14 is a lot like the Mustang as range and speed were essential fleet defense criteria - so the F-14 would almost always be fuel heavy going into a fight.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 24, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The VFAX was the USN version of the F-16. IIRC the XL was the delta wing variant.
> 
> Vought died (as a prime) because President Sol Love (as a former engineer) believed two things - one the F-16 was a better ship than the F-18 and, two he believed the Navy would comply with the congressional mandate that the Navy buy the winner of the USAF fly off between the F-16 and F-18.
> 
> 1976.



The XL was the delta version, it was the competitor for the F-15E for the ATF competition. 

And technically it was the YF-17 that lost to the F-16 as the LWF, the F-18 came later. (albeit as a development of the YF-17) The VFAX F-16 was the LTV Aerospace (Vought) Model 1600/1601/1602.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 24, 2008)

Would the F-15 benefit from vortex formation in high AoA maneuvers as well? It doesn't have the root extentions for this purpose, but given the planform it would seem probable to experient the phenomenon to some extent being similar to a Delta. -Delta wings being well known of having this property, hence the extreme nose-high landings, first discovered by Yeager in the XF-92.- 
(I know the F-18 has similar root extentions as the F-16 as well)

And the unswept F-14's wings would also have a thicker "true" airfoil section, which would increase the wing's Clmax, spanwise flow will also be reduced. Of course this still gives us no comparison on the lift abilities of these 3 aircraft

Though the higher thrust/weight alone of the other 2 will give them the energy advantage, and better maneivering ability at higher speeds and in the vertical. And the advantage of relaxed stability with FBW of the F-16. (though the F-15 gained some extra maneuvering ability with the addition of FBW too)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 24, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I actually am interested. At top Gun the instructors stayed with A4 as the F-4s were phased out and the F-14s were moving in.



They've actually transitioned to F-16N's and late-model F-14's painted as adversary a/c, but I understand some of the older instructors reaaally miss the "Scooter"; it may not turn as well as an F-16, but it had a better roll rate and was slightly smaller than the -16 making it harder to see.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I cant compete with any of the experience here, so im going to do the smart thing and respect it. I do know that the in the RIMPAC excercises I attnded in the early 80's, the F-14 was not considered to be just a bomber killer, or anything inferior....in fact the USN guys, and the RAN PWOs I worked with/for viewed the ship as the "queen of the battlefield"
> 
> I remeber at one part of one excercise, they downgraded the performace and limited the maximum engagement ranges of the Tomcats defending Constellation (I think....my memory is starting to fade). The attacking A-4s were given some standoff capability. With those paparameters injected into the excercise, our A-4s managed to slip past and disable the carrier, which was then finished off by an Oberon submarine.
> 
> ...




Good Info....

In the 98 RIMPAC I participated in the F-15 were being used to harass the carrier fighter cap. From what I remembered they were being sent out in flights of 2 and 4. When they reached the carrier group they were engaged by either F-18s or F-14s. From what I was told the F-15s chews up the -14s but had a harder time with the 18s. This was off the coast of Hawaii.


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

Bill,

The F-14 features a variable camber wing as-well, LE flaps. The reason we can safely assume that the F-14's wing is more efficient is the much higher AR of the wing.

And as to Span-loading:
_"Aspect ratio and planform are powerful indicators of the general performance of a wing, although the aspect ratio as such is only a secondary indicator. The wingspan is the crucial component of the performance. This is because an airplane derives its lift from a roughly cylindrical tube of air that is affected by the craft as it moves, and the diameter of that cylindrical tube is equal to the wingspan. Thus a large wingspan is working on a large cylinder of air, and a small wingspan is working on a small cylinder of air. The smaller cylinder of air must be pushed downward by a greater amount in order to produce an equal upward force; the aft-leaning component of this change in velocity is proportional to the induced drag. Therefore a large downward velocity is proportional to a large induced drag."_


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

> If you look closely the area of the F-14 wing is exactly the same extended or tucked.



Ofcourse, the wing merely sweeps back and forth, it doesn't alter shape


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 24, 2008)

These are fascinating discussions about aircraft aeronautical qualities. And certainly in a "fighter" aeronautical capabilities debate are of utmost importance during the merge.

What I do find a bit intriguing, however, is the lack of discussion of aircraft engagement doctrine. Here is where I believe the discussion should really reside. So far, the thread is focusing upon ability to maintain max-E for the airframe in question. And that's not an illegitimate argument.

However, FlyBoyJ noted way back that perhaps an engagement might be ended BEFORE the merge. Is this thread limited to modern day worst case operational scenario discussion of where situational awareness derived from other assets are discarded, ECM of a defensive package are ignored, AESA RADAR capabilities are marginalized and netcentric operations have been compromised? If so, the F-22 is then likely nothing to terribly special other than inability to lock-on in certain engagement aspects.

Again, I'll ask what the scenario is supposed to be. If it is a 1-v-1 headlong engagement at short range with ANY modern fighter aircraft, I would suggest that you have just leveled the playing field and predict that virtually any aircraft might result the victor, plus or minus.

While it might be argued that herein lies the US Achilles Heel with respect to ROE, I might agree. But I thought we were talking capabilities.

See what I mean?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 25, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> However, FlyBoyJ noted way back that perhaps an engagement might be ended BEFORE the merge. Is this thread limited to modern day worst case operational scenario discussion of where situational awareness derived from other assets are discarded, ECM of a defensive package are ignored, AESA RADAR capabilities are marginalized and netcentric operations have been compromised? If so, the F-22 is then likely nothing to terribly special other than inability to lock-on in certain engagement aspects.



You are correct, Matt; in fact, my understanding of current ROE is that there should never BE a merge to begin with. In theory, the enemy assets should be "taken out" before they ever become a real threat to any US assets, which means, preferably, BVR battles with AMRAAM's and, in a worst-case scenario, AIM-9's M-61's. AFAIK, no US F-15 has been forced to participate in a "knife fight" with an adversary a/c (though I'm sure the Israelis have), so we really don't know how a US F-15 (or F-14 of F-16) would perform "in the merge" with an adversary a/c, we can only speculate. So far, US tactical doctrine has worked to minimize losses.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 25, 2008)

Soren, the F-14's wing is going to be able to produce more lift at lower sweep angles than at higher sweepback angles and with a higher lift/drag ratio. (due to the thickening of the "real" airfoil, reduction in spanwise flow, and increase in span-thus AR)

But this says nothing about how the F-15 and F-16's wings will compare in terms of lift/drag and the wing's maximum lift per the aircraft's weight. (so called "liftloading")Not to mention differences in critical AoA of these aircraft. (and other it ignores roll-rate entirely -somthing I assume would decrease on the F-14 as the wings extend -the F-16 probably being the best)

And even if the F-15 did have a lower lift/drag ratio than the F-14 (which it would apear likely at lower speeds), the Eagle's significantly better thrust/weight will probably more than make up for this.


Additionally, your friend's comparison with the sistained G values is only useful for comparing sustained turns. And plain old turn-fighting isn't very commonly used. (though it would seem that this may be the only advantageous area for the F-14)


It's kind of like comparing a Hurricane with a Spitfire, or a Buffalo with a Corsair. The older plane's going to be able to out turn the other, but the newer ones will be able to out run, out flimb, out accelerate their opponenst. (and probably out-roll them too)



Soren said:


> Ofcourse, the wing merely sweeps back and forth, it doesn't alter shape



The area could have decreased if the trailing edge of the wing root retracted into the fufalage. (as was the case of the Me P.1101 V1 and Bell X-5)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 25, 2008)

My favorite is the F-14, but this is not about favorites. As for best, for me it can not be the F-14. Why? Of the 3 aircraft it was the least cost efficient, most maintenance intensive, and had the worst flight hours per maintenance hours.

I have a close friend that I work with. He was a US Navy F-14 mechanic before he switched over to the Army to become a Blackhawk mechanic. He said that it was a fight to keep the F-14s in the air. They were very maintenance intensive and broke all the time. He also said that they were very expensive to maintain.

He said great aircraft when it was in the air but it was a bitch to keep them flying.

My friends, the reasons stated above are why the Navy retired the F-14. Of the 3 aircraft it is not the best one...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> However, FlyBoyJ noted way back that perhaps an engagement might be ended BEFORE the merge. Is this thread limited to modern day worst case operational scenario discussion of where situational awareness derived from other assets are discarded, ECM of a defensive package are ignored, AESA RADAR capabilities are marginalized and netcentric operations have been compromised





SoD Stitch said:


> You are correct, Matt; in fact, my understanding of current ROE is that there should never BE a merge to begin with. In theory, the enemy assets should be "taken out" before they ever become a real threat to any US assets, which means, preferably, BVR battles with AMRAAM's and, in a worst-case scenario, AIM-9's M-61's. AFAIK, no US F-15 has been forced to participate in a "knife fight" with an adversary a/c (though I'm sure the Israelis have), so we really don't know how a US F-15 (or F-14 of F-16) would perform "in the merge" with an adversary a/c, we can only speculate. So far, US tactical doctrine has worked to minimize losses.


That says it all guys - this thread was trying to place modern combat aircraft in a perspective found 60 years ago. "Fight in the horizontal?" Come on! 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have a close friend that I work with. He was a US Navy F-14 mechanic before he switched over to the Army to become a Blackhawk mechanic. He said that it was a fight to keep the F-14s in the air. They were very maintenance intensive and broke all the time. He also said that they were very expensive to maintain.
> 
> He said great aircraft when it was in the air but it was a bitch to keep them flying.
> 
> My friends, the reasons stated above are why the Navy retired the F-14. Of the 3 aircraft it is not the best one...


I served with several former F-14 mechs - when they came into a P-3 squadron, in their words "It was like going on vacation."


> Why don't you look in the POH of each aircraft and it will tell you the exact data you are looking for.





Soren said:


> Don't have it FLYBOYJ, and I doubt most people do



F-15 A "EAGLE" McDonnel Douglas FLIGHT MANUAL - eBay (item 120322079827 end time Oct-28-08 19:30:33 PDT)

F-14 D "TOMCAT" Grumman NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL - eBay (item 110302869510 end time Oct-29-08 06:05:08 PDT)

RARE F-16 A&B General Dynamics F-16 FLIGHT MANUAL - eBay (item 110302759750 end time Oct-28-08 19:30:32 PDT)


----------



## drgondog (Oct 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ofcourse, the wing merely sweeps back and forth, it doesn't alter shape



It changes shape and AR, it doesn't change area... the one advantage of the swing wing is to improve the AR and L/D in low speed and enable the safe carrier landing and take off. The disadvantage is weight and complexity.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 25, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> You are correct, Matt; in fact, my understanding of current ROE is that there should never BE a merge to begin with. In theory, the enemy assets should be "taken out" before they ever become a real threat to any US assets, which means, preferably, BVR battles with AMRAAM's and, in a worst-case scenario, AIM-9's M-61's. AFAIK, no US F-15 has been forced to participate in a "knife fight" with an adversary a/c (though I'm sure the Israelis have), so we really don't know how a US F-15 (or F-14 of F-16) would perform "in the merge" with an adversary a/c, we can only speculate. So far, US tactical doctrine has worked to minimize losses.



This is dead on.

I had a conversation with a Eurofighter wing CO at DM in April. They were over for joint exercises and frequently engaged with both the F-15 and F-22. He felt he had a slight edge on the F-15 simply because he had a better radar and with that - there should be no knife fights unless the missles failed and the Eurofighter was perhaps superior in the knife fight.

He was totally frustrated by the F-22. 'You can't kill what you can't see'


----------



## renrich (Oct 25, 2008)

Interesting but perhaps not relevant. February, 1973. F14A versus F4J with slats. (1) Starting position, F4J astern of F14 1000 ft, both AC at mach 1.25 and 35000 ft. (2) 7.4 G break by F14 forces F4J to overshoot. (3)F14 reverses early as F4J goes wide. Initiation of scissors. (4) Second reversal as F14 establishes ACM superiority and forces F4J out in front. (5) F14 reverses back into a shooting position- just 15 seconds after the initial break. Incidently, I have a good friend who has 2000 hours in the F100 and was an IP at the Fighter Weapons School. I mentioned to him after my flight in an L39 that I could not understand how fighter pilots could see well to the rear quarters because of being strapped in so tight. He replied that it was a problem and that a friend of his who was the best at ACM that he knew either loosened or disconnected all the staps while in ACM.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2008)

I've flown in the rear of L-29s and 39s, F-4s, T-33s and Fougas and for the most part its hard to look around if you're hard strapped in, especially if wearing a chute. I like the back of the 29 better than the 39 and in the 29s I've flown in both the front and rear, it pretty easy to adjust the seat belts so you could move your torso.

The F-4? I always felt clostophobic but got used to using peripheral vision. In the F-4 you also have leg straps that secure your legs in case of ejection, they add no comfort.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 25, 2008)

drgondog said:


> This is dead on.



Thanks for the compliment, dd.



drgondog said:


> He was totally frustrated by the F-22. 'You can't kill what you can't see'



And I've heard the same sentiment expressed by F-15 "Ego" drivers fighting against the F-22 at Red Flag excercises; the F-15 pilots were frustrated because their radars never detected the F-22 until it was too late. This is a quote from 64th 65th AS (Agressor Squadron) pilots: "'The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy', said RAAF Sqn Ldr Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. 'It's the most frustrated I've ever been.'
According to Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th Agressor Squadron commander, Agressor pilots turned up the heat on the F-22 using tactics they believe to be modern threats. For security purposes, these tactics weren't released; nonetheless, they said their efforts against the Raptors were fruitless. 'We even tried to overload them with numbers and failed', said Col. Bruce. 'It's humbling to fly against the F-22.'"


----------



## drgondog (Oct 25, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Thanks for the compliment, dd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




SoD - a recently retired friend - Col Kent Laughbaum, flew F-15's and F-16's and wound up his career this year as 355th FW CO - the hog farm at DM. 

It was interesting to see the same frustration at the 355th O club when hosting the Eurofighter wing Brits at Roll Call. I asked him later and he said basically that nobody has laid a glove on the 22 even in a knife fight when it was in visual.

There is universal respect for it from everyone who tests against it.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 25, 2008)

Again, I am not trying to be too flippant about this, and i am the first to acknowledge the superior knowledge of nearly all the members here when it comes to technical aspects, but there are couple of things being intimated here that i have to try and respond to

My apolgies also if I am misunderstanding you guys as well

Anyway, it seems to mee that it is being suggested that close combat (a "merge"????) is not the the way to use modern combat aircraft, implying that such skills are not really needed. Wasnt that the thinking that led to the deployment of the F-4s wothout gun armament over North Vietnam, and attracted a great deal of criticism as a result. If close in dogfighting is "obolete, why is it still practised to near exhaustion at the various fighter schools around the world include the US top gun school, and our equivalent here in Australia.

And from the conversations I have had in the past with F-14 jocks, the Tomcat could be configured to dogfight very effectively.....

To be honest, I dont know which of the three planes are, or were better. They each had diffeerent primary roles incidentally. What i am sure of is that in its day, the Tomcat was not considered second rate or a failure, on any grounds, but certainly not in the air....

I have attached a couple of excerpts from my kiddies books on the Tomcate, dealing with some aspects of its engineering and effectiveness. Have a look and see what you think....


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 25, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Anyway, it seems to mee that it is being suggested that close combat (a "merge"????) is not the the way to use modern combat aircraft, implying that such skills are not really needed. Wasnt that the thinking that led to the deployment of the F-4s wothout gun armament over North Vietnam, and attracted a great deal of criticism as a result. If close in dogfighting is "obolete, why is it still practised to near exhaustion at the various fighter schools around the world include the US top gun school, and our equivalent here in Australia.



The "merge", or "knife fight", is a tactic of last resort; as I said earlier, if everything goes according to plan (enemy target acquired, identified, and dealt with accordingly), this should not be permitted to happen. HOWEVER, that being said, the armed forces (in particular the USAF) learned (the hard way) that they cannot depend solely on defeating enemy air assets from long distance (i.e.: BVR); hence, the necessity for agility (or superagility) in any a/c required to acquire and maintain air superiority, especially over enemy territory. The USAF became quite complacent in the late '50's/early '60's, and were convinced that any opponent could be dealt with "at range", using long-range (for the '60's) missles; in theory, the two adversary a/c shouldn't even see each other, let alone get involved in ACM. The armed forces aren't going to make that same mistake twice, hence the emphasis upon designing modern fighter a/c capable of "supermaneuverability". 

I am no expert on the current DACT excercises (perhaps someone else here can add more details), but my IMPRESSION is that, even at these excercises (such as Red Flag), many of the "kills" take place at BVR, so close-in ACM actually doesn't happen all that often (unless you watch "Top Gun"!).


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 26, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Anyway, it seems to mee that it is being suggested that close combat (a "merge"????) is not the the way to use modern combat aircraft, implying that such skills are not really needed. Wasnt that the thinking that led to the deployment of the F-4s wothout gun armament over North Vietnam, and attracted a great deal of criticism as a result. If close in dogfighting is "obolete, why is it still practised to near exhaustion at the various fighter schools around the world include the US top gun school, and our equivalent here in Australia.....



Since I introduced that lexicon into this thread I suppose you want me to reply, Parsifal. I have never stated that close combat, furballs, or knife fights were obsolete in the modern fighter operational scenarios. Rather, what I am asking is what are the parameters for this silly discussion to rank fighter airplanes? At the beginning of the thread there were no boundaries upon the environment upon which you must assign a ranking. In modern combat that is not only silly, its a plain stupid question.

I liked your Grumman comic of an F-4 vs an F-14.  But 30 years later, tactics, data dissemination and force projection doctrine are night and day different, Parsifal.

The order of battle in a modern airforce involve more than just a 'gun armed supersonic fighter' in a head-to-head encounter. Look at the latest tactics employed with the USAF, where target information is given by UAS stealth aircraft via datalink to F-15s and other assets. Situational awareness of threats, blue forces and reserve assets are conveyed via netcentric comm links. In the latest exercises, these types of operations result in the ability to convey target data to multiple fighter assets while allowing passive observations of enemy forces. The ability to link this type of data affords blue forces to employ defensive tactics minimizing ground defences, engage enemy aircraft with ECM and launch missiles all without emitting RF energy. This is transformational.

While Link16 was implemented in the F-14D, the ability to uplink broadband information to the Tomcat was severely limited. And I find it interesting that nobody took heed to Adler's comments about maintenance. If you ask me, that was the deal killer for Navy. If your maintenance hours are so cost prohibitive as to prevent operational use, where does that leave you?


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 26, 2008)

And where is Soren? This is his thread isn't it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> I liked your Grumman comic of an F-4 vs an F-14.  But 30 years later, tactics, data dissemination and force projection doctrine are night and day different


BINGO

The F-14 was a bomber killer - it was everything the Soviets were looking for with the MiG-25.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 26, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> The order of battle in a modern airforce involve more than just a 'gun armed supersonic fighter' in a head-to-head encounter. Look at the latest tactics employed with the USAF, where target information is given by UAS stealth aircraft via datalink to F-15s and other assets. Situational awareness of threats, blue forces and reserve assets are conveyed via netcentric comm links. In the latest exercises, these types of operations result in the ability to convey target data to multiple fighter assets while allowing passive observations of enemy forces. The ability to link this type of data affords blue forces to employ defensive tactics minimizing ground defences, engage enemy aircraft with ECM and launch missiles all without emitting RF energy. This is transformational.?



This is the key, especially as it applies to the F-22; the Raptor was designed from the outset to be able to rapidly share information with other blue assets instantaneously. The tactics used to employ F-22's is totally different from the way previous fighters (even the F-15) were employed; a flight of four F-22's typically have a spacing of five miles (sometimes further) from each other, and each a/c can "see" what the other a/c sees. During a hostile engagement, the adversary may be actively tracked by only a single F-22, but that information is instantly relayed to the other three Raptors in that flight so, essentially, the target is being tracked (and engaged) by a total of four a/c at once; the enemy a/c will never be aware of the other three Raptors until it's too late. 

For a good discussion on the evolution of new tactics for the Raptor, go here:

The Raptor Arrives | Military Aviation | Air Space Magazine



Matt308 said:


> While Link16 was implemented in the F-14D, the ability to uplink broadband information to the Tomcat was severely limited. And I find it interesting that nobody took heed to Adler's comments about maintenance. If you ask me, that was the deal killer for Navy. If your maintenance hours are so cost prohibitive as to prevent operational use, where does that leave you?



I had a friend who used to be an F-14 mechanic on-board the Connie and, IIRC, he said that towards the end of it's operational life (he worked on the A), the a/c required _10 maintenance hours_ for every one hour of flying time. Naval aviation mechanics typically worked on an a/c throughout the night trying to get it ready for the next day's mission; basically, if the a/c was on-board, it was being worked on. That is unacceptably high, even for a valuable asset like the F-14.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 26, 2008)

were that military endeavours as predictable as we would all like. But often they don't work out that way. In a perfect world air threats would be removed at range, before the "knife fights" as you put it begin. I can tell you from experience that things can often turn out differently.

Whilst the jargon is different, and no doubt the technology, the theories you are touting are not new at all. Back in the 70s and 80s we were busily installing and utilizing the latest NCDS systems, mostly for air warfare and ASW, but the system had applications in many areas.

NCDS allowed the full integration and control of weapon systems and sensors across a wide range and spectrum. Just as an example, it allowed our Ikara equipped ASW frigates to see what our Sea King underwater detection systems were seeing. We could launch an Ikara at the target from over 70 kms away, with the frigates own systems totally blind, and allow the helo to provide the necessary data to the ships computers, that steered the missile onto the target. At the time the Ikara system had the highest kill to launch probability of any system in the world. 

NCDS was American technology, with similar uses found in the E2 Hawkeyes, and other platforms. We all thought it revolutionized warfare, in much the same way as you guys are sprouting how things are so different now.....it wasn't till years later that I realized that this sort of advantage (the optimum integration of military force and detection) had been sought by military forces since the ancient times.

The point I am making is that it is very dangerous to become complacent that somehow the black box will take care of it all. It is also wrong to suggest that the F-14 was somehow divorced from that combat integration concept. it isn't, in fact the combination of hawkeye AWACs, ship based NCDS systems, and the F-14 weapons platform was an extremely potent team for its time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2008)

parsifal said:


> the F-14 weapons platform was an extremely potent team for its time.


And I think we all agree - just saying the F-15 was better in the air-to-air role.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The F-14 features a variable camber wing as-well, LE flaps. The reason we can safely assume that the F-14's wing is more efficient is the much higher AR of the wing.
> 
> ...



Mostly true and irrelevant to the discussion or the context in which you presented it.

Aerodynamically speaking, in the discussion of wing wakes, separation and related phenomena, it is useful to study the field properties of the field vorticity vector and with the concept of an instantaneous pattern of streamlines, drawn at a given time, everywhere tangent to that vector.

This concept leads to the idea of a vortex line and a vortex tube, the 'arrows' along such lines and tubes being directed according to the right hand rule of spin of fluid properties.

This concept led to the first two vortex theorems of Hemholtz - and while stated for the vortex field are purely geometrical in nature.

Net - you are confusing the notion of 'cylindrical tube of air' with a relevance to tip vortices and downwash?

If you believe that the smaller 'cylinder'/wingspan creates a 'stronger push down' I would invite you to a.) follow a J-3 on final approach and then b.) tuck under a 747 and tell us the results of your investigation.

Had you related lift load and AR per se you could have led into a discussion about increasing/reducing tip vortex strength - all other things being equal.

BTW - for an inviscous fluid (no friction), a stream tube, by Helmholtz's Second Theorem - must never end in the fluid itself but must close unto itself, end at a boundary or go to infinity. In other words the vortex line starts along the lifting line span wise to the tips, transition to a vortx tube at the tip and remain in decreasing strength at that point as the aircraft proceeds to its final destination, land, lose lift and close the vortex line at that point.

You experience this (the vortex, and a strong one depending on the strength of the lifting line) if you land short of that ship's point of touch down, but do not if you land past the point where the other ship 'lost lift'. After a minute or so the real world friction/viscosity dissipates the vortex.


----------



## renrich (Oct 26, 2008)

The question about the Tomcat's maintenance record is certainly revelant. However, I have a question about that record. It seems like most of the poor availability record is based on testimony about the period of time from around 1991 to 2007. At that time the Tomcat had been in service almost 20 years or more. Another factor which plays a role is the service the AC endured. An assumption is that the Tomcats flew a lot of hours since they were spread around mainly on carriers which also saw a lot of service. Those hours included a carrier cat launch and landing every hour or two or three. Those evolutions put a lot of stress on the systems in the AC. No question that the Tomcat was at least a half a generation ahead of the F16 and 15 that probably had more reliable electronic and electrical systems which I understand was where most of the maintennace issues lay. How would the 15 and 16 have stood up in carrier ops which they were not capable of anyway? Were the maintenance problems with the Tomcat long standing or recent due to the AC being worn out? Perhaps a more relevant question anyway is how would the Tomcat have done in ACM with the Mig 29 and SU27?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2008)

renrich said:


> The question about the Tomcat's maintenance record is certainly revelant. However, I have a question about that record. It seems like most of the poor availability record is based on testimony about the period of time from around 1991 to 2007. At that time the Tomcat had been in service almost 20 years or more. Another factor which plays a role is the service the AC endured. An assumption is that the Tomcats flew a lot of hours since they were spread around mainly on carriers which also saw a lot of service. Those hours included a carrier cat launch and landing every hour or two or three. Those evolutions put a lot of stress on the systems in the AC. No question that the Tomcat was at least a half a generation ahead of the F16 and 15 that probably had more reliable electronic and electrical systems which I understand was where most of the maintennace issues lay. How would the 15 and 16 have stood up in carrier ops which they were not capable of anyway? Were the maintenance problems with the Tomcat long standing or recent due to the AC being worn out? Perhaps a more relevant question anyway is how would the Tomcat done in ACM with the Mig 29 and SU27?


The F-14s maintenance woes wasn't a matter of its age or operation, it was not designed "maintenance friendly." Routine maintenance, changing filters and engine changes were a bitch from what I was told. As far as more reliable electrical and avionics? I doubt that in fact the F-14, from what remember was initially wired with "Poly X" wire and a good portion of the F-14 fleet had to be rewired when the aircraft was brought into depo status.

The F-14A and later D had FMC problems and the Navy recognized it.

Naval Institute Proceedings Magazine: A J.O. Looks at TacAir Readiness, by Lieutenant Patrick Porter


----------



## renrich (Oct 26, 2008)

Re the visibility question when I was in the L39 rear seat I was strapped in with a parachute and could not look around much over a 180 degree arc. Course, I am not as flexible as I used to be. LOL I don't see how the GIB in an F4 was much use at all visually.


----------



## Soren (Oct 26, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> And where is Soren? This is his thread isn't it?



Hey can't a man take a break for a weekend ? 

Anyway I think it was been pretty solidly proven by now that the F-14 is the better turn fighter of the three. However as noted dogfighting is a thing of the past atm, unless getting a missile lock is impossible (Which could be the case in the future, making the gun the dominant weapon again).

That having been said, the F-14's superiority in the horizontal is ofcourse not the reason I rate it as best, that would be because of its radar long range attack capability. In a BVR fight the F-14 has the edge.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-14s maintenance woes wasn't a matter of its age or operation, it was not designed "maintenance friendly." Routine maintenance, changing filters and engine changes were a bitch from what I was told. As far as more reliable electrical and avionics? I doubt that in fact the F-14, from what remember was initially wired with "Poly X" wire and a good portion of the F-14 fleet had to be rewired when the aircraft was brought into depo status.
> 
> The F-14A and later D had FMC problems and the Navy recognized it.
> 
> Naval Institute Proceedings Magazine: A J.O. Looks at TacAir Readiness, by Lieutenant Patrick Porter



My friend has confirmed the same thing. He has said it hand nothing to do with age, but was just not maintenance friendly at all.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 27, 2008)

a correcti0on, Ikaras werent launched at 70lms, they were launched out to 26 klms (the missile had a range of 20 klms, and the homing torp a range of about 6 klms. 

Makes no difference to the debate, but I wanted to correct an error in my post....


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> That having been said, the F-14's superiority in the horizontal is ofcourse not the reason I rate it as best, that would be because of its radar long range attack capability. In a BVR fight the F-14 has the edge.



So let me get this straight, Soren. You are professing that the AWG-9 is a better platform than the AN/APG-63V(3)? Do tell. This outta be good.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Hey can't a man take a break for a weekend ?
> 
> Anyway I think it was been pretty solidly proven by now that the F-14 is the better turn fighter of the three.


Ahhh, no it hasn't, in fact I tink just the opposite has been proven - its been shown that the F-15 has a larger wing area, lower wing loading, and higher thrust to weight ratio. It is not a true fighter to fighter dogfigter but it can be


Soren said:


> That having been said, the F-14's superiority in the horizontal is ofcourse not the reason I rate it as best, that would be because of its radar long range attack capability. In a BVR fight the F-14 has the edge.


Again, no one fights in the horizontal in this century unless they want to die quickly - I could somewhat agree on the radar depending on the scenrio and the time period. By now even the F-14D radar is bettered by many aircraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> So let me get this straight, Soren. You are professing that the AWG-9 is a better platform than the AN/APG-63V(3)? Do tell. This outta be good.


*BINGO!*


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Mostly true and irrelevant to the discussion or the context in which you presented it.
> 
> Aerodynamically speaking, in the discussion of wing wakes, separation and related phenomena, it is useful to study the field properties of the field vorticity vector and with the concept of an instantaneous pattern of streamlines, drawn at a given time, everywhere tangent to that vector.
> 
> ...




Bill,

I don't see how it is irrelevant to the discussion when it was a direct answer to your question. You asked how the F-14's wing was more efficient than the other's. Are we not allowed to answer questions anymore ?

The answer is that given the much higher AR of the F-14's wing there is no doubt it is more efficient. They all use LE slats/flaps to increase camber and reenergize the boundary layer, so in that department they're equal. However the higher AR of the F-14's wing gives it more lift and less drag pr. area, which is also what allows it to land on a carrier while the F-15 would be completely incapable of that because of it's higher stall speed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> However the higher AR of the F-14's wing gives it more lift and less drag pr. area, which is also what allows it to land on a carrier while the F-15 would be completely incapable of that because of it's higher stall speed.


And this makes it more maneuverable? BTW it has been documented the F-4 is easier to land on a carrier than an F-14. I think its well recognized that the F-14 was *designed *to land on a carrier, something the F-15 was not.


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ahhh, no it hasn't, in fact I tink just the opposite has been proven - its been shown that the F-15 has a larger wing area, lower wing loading, and higher thrust to weight ratio.



Errr, no. The F-15 might have a lower wing loading but that doesn't tell us anything. Why ? Cause the F-14s wing produces more lift less drag pr. area. I'd say the F-14's lower stall speed is a pretty good indicator of this  

As for T/W ratio, well it really aint that much, and in a turn it will have to make up for the extra drag of the F-15.



> Again, no one fights in the horizontal in this century unless they want to die quickly



Have I ever disagreed with that ??? No. However there's a reason the gatling gun is there. If a lock on is impossible or if the missiles fail and you're forced into a dogfight, then the superior dogfighting capability and addition of a gatling gun will come in handy.



> I could somewhat agree on the radar depending on the scenrio and the time period. By now even the F-14D radar is bettered by many aircraft



But which a/c can fire the Phoenix missile ? The F-14.

Okay today the radars have become better, but in 1991 where the latest version of both a/c were in service the F-14 had a distinct advantage.


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And this makes it more maneuverable? BTW it has been documented the F-4 is easier to land on a carrier than an F-14. I think its well recognized that the F-14 was *designed *to land on a carrier, something the F-15 was not.



The wing sweep action works automatically on the F-14, adjusting according to the flight mode of the a/c. If entering a tight turn the sweep is varied automatically to give the best results. This gives it better turn performance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Errr, no. The F-15 might have a lower wing loading but that doesn't tell us anything. Why ? Cause the F-14s wing produces more lift less drag pr. area. I'd say the F-14's lower stall speed is a pretty good indicator of this


Prove it...The F-14's low stall speed (with the wings fully extended) is about 90 knots and it was designed for this for carrier landings, no one is disputing that, it doesn't mean the F-14 could turn better in a dogfight - as a matter of fact its taught at Top Gun (When the F-14 was operational) NOT to turn with any fighter (unless you're fighting an F-4 or MiG-25).


Soren said:


> As for T/W ratio, well it really aint that much, and in a turn it will have to make up for the extra drag of the F-15.



It makes all the differance, and again prove that the F-15 puts out more drag . The extra power enables the aircraft to remain in the turn without loosing energy and unless you have a figet that is better than a 1 to 1 TR, you will loose energy in the turn. The F-14 TR is LESS and 1 to 1




Soren said:


> Have I ever disagreed with that ??? No. However there's a reason the gatling gun is there. If a lock on is impossible or if the missiles fail and you're forced into a dogfight, then the superior dogfighting capability and addition of a gatling gun will come in handy.


And the F-15 has the same gun, again your point?



Soren said:


> But which a/c can fire the Phoenix missile ? The F-14.


And it was designed to do so from the outset so it could kill Soviet Bombers.


Soren said:


> Okay today the radars have become better, but in 1991 where the latest version of both a/c were in service the F-14 had a distinct advantage.


Again it depends on the scenerio.


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

> as a matter of fact its taught at Top Gun (When the F-14 was operational) NOT to turn with any fighter (unless you're fighting an F-4 or MiG-25).



That's odd, I've heard the exact opposite. A hard breaking turn in the horizontal was the recommended evasive maneuver against the smaller lighter a/c of the instructors, as well as against MIG-29's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> That's odd, I've heard the exact opposite. A hard breaking turn in the horizontal was the recommended evasive maneuver against the smaller lighter a/c of the instructors, as well as against MIG-29's.


Vertical - the aircraft has power so it goes vertical to initiate "the egg" and possibly go into a yo-yo. Turning with a MiG-29? You'll die very quick.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi Guys, to set the score straight (if that can be done) in 1999 F-14Ds from VF2 on patrol in Southern Watch squeezed off two phoenix's but the Mig-23s (or Mig-25s) depending on the teller detected the missile launch and turned away at high speed opening Vc. One missile went dumb into the ground. Both missed. An F-18 was ordered to take a Sparrow shot but range was opening very quickly. So the first combat (and only) use did not fair well.
Durning ACEVAL/AIMVAL at nellis between 1975-78 the USAF tried to validate tactics and types of missiles. Near the end of this engagement a forbidden conflict was arranged(F14 vs F15). The outcome was classified for quite a while, not so much for intel but for political sensitivities. 
It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)
As for the F-16, my experience was if you hang a pod you effectively degrade the eagle eyes and the fight is now in the "phonebooth" And it is a knife fight with the F-15 bleeding badly.
In my current job I have at my fingertips the "real" data from F-5s to the Typhoon cause everyone is trying to sell their wares here.
Current open sources are pretty close but the fact that the Typhoon hasn't won a major sale outside europe is telling....saudi doesn't count. The maintainablity factor is more than double the F-18. Also the F-16 Block 60 with its AESA is kicking everyone's ass in this region.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

krieghund said:


> Hi Guys, to set the score straight (if that can be done) in 1999 F-14Ds from VF2 on patrol in Southern Watch squeezed off two phoenix's but the Mig-23s (or Mig-25s) depending on the teller detected the missile launch and turned away at high speed opening Vc. One missile went dumb into the ground. Both missed. An F-18 was ordered to take a Sparrow shot but range was opening very quickly. So the first combat (and only) use did not fair well.
> Durning ACEVAL/AIMVAL at nellis between 1975-78 the USAF tried to validate tactics and types of missiles. Near the end of this engagement a forbidden conflict was arranged(F14 vs F15). The outcome was classified for quite a while, not so much for intel but for political sensitivities.
> It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)
> As for the F-16, my experience was if you hang a pod you effectively degrade the eagle eyes and the fight is now in the "phonebooth" And it is a knife fight with the F-15 bleeding badly.
> ...



*"There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)"*

Great Info!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 27, 2008)

krieghund said:


> It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)



When you say "quite a few splashes", do you mean the F-14's scored several "kills" against the -15's?



krieghund said:


> As for the F-16, my experience was if you hang a pod you effectively degrade the eagle eyes and the fight is now in the "phonebooth" And it is a knife fight with the F-15 bleeding badly.



Also, when you say "hang a pod", I assume you mean the F-16 is carrying an AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pod. So the -16 effectively "turns burns" better than the F-15? 



krieghund said:


> In my current job I have at my fingertips the "real" data from F-5s to the Typhoon cause everyone is trying to sell their wares here.
> Current open sources are pretty close but the fact that the Typhoon hasn't won a major sale outside europe is telling....saudi doesn't count. The maintainablity factor is more than double the F-18. Also the F-16 Block 60 with its AESA is kicking everyone's ass in this region.



Interesting info; I had no idea the EF-2000 was so maintenance intensive. I had always thought the Eurofighter was supposed to be "user friendly"; I guess not. It's good to know about the Block 60, I'm glad our defense industry is doing SOMETHING right.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> I don't see how it is irrelevant to the discussion when it was a direct answer to your question. You asked how the F-14's wing was more efficient than the other's. Are we not allowed to answer questions anymore ?
> 
> ...



Soren, the reason we get into these debates is that you are opinion based, not fact based. 

If you wish to maintain the AR of the F-14 in transonic to supersonic is greater - prove it (it will be tough). If you wish to maintain the F-14 radar is superior - prove it. If you want to dismiss the huge energy manueverability disadvantage for the F-14, show how 20-25% higher T/W ratio, 20% lower lift loading and higher acceleration for both the F-16 and F-15 - is to the F-14 advantage.. prove it.

Last - you wish to fall back to your stream tube dissertaion, and repeat slowly what you think you mean - then tell us again how 'small stream tube' implies more efficiency - help us out by proving the small, heavy swing wing F-14 has a less concentrated tip vortex and a more efficient wing than say a a U-2. 

Knock yourself out - you can use either swing wing or swept for the -14 to prove it's 'efficiency' over the much larger 'stream tube'

I would start with L/D but that would be silly me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> So let me get this straight, Soren. You are professing that the AWG-9 is a better platform than the AN/APG-63V(3)? Do tell. This outta be good.



Because Soren says so, I don't know....



FLYBOYJ said:


> Vertical - the aircraft has power so it goes vertical to initiate "the egg" and possibly go into a yo-yo. Turning with a MiG-29? You'll die very quick.



Quit it now Joe! What do you know? You only have actual real world flight experience in high speed twin engined fighter jets, that does not come close to "real world book knowledge"!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Quit it now Joe! What do you know? You only have actual real world flight experience in high speed twin engined fighter jets, that does not come close to "real world book knowledge"!


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 27, 2008)

Does the F-16 even have a leg to stand on in this discussion, or is it so far outclassed that this debate should be between the F-15 and F-14 only?

Maybe the F-16 would have a chance with Doug Masters in the cockpit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2008)

Messy1 said:


> Maybe the F-16 would have a chance with Doug Masters in the cockpit.





I think I am going to go and watch that movie here in a minute. They are so shitty and fake, but they are cult!

"Where not going to take it, No where not going take it!!!"


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Because Soren says so, I don't know....



Okay, let's take a look at the two radar systems in question:

AWG-9: For it's time, the most powerful airborne radar system in the world; able to track up to 24 targets at a time, and launch missles at 6 of them at one time. Range well in excess of 100 nm. However, it is based and built using analog technology from the '60's, was maintenance intensive, and was completely incapapable of being used in an a2g mode (which is why the F-14D got the AN/APG-71 digital multi-mode radar); could probably best be compared to the RP-25 _Smerch_ radar on the later MiG-25 interceptor.

AN/APG-63(V)3: Completely digital, multi-mode AESA technology, classified range (the broadly similar radar in the F-22, the AN/APG-77, has a range "in excess of 320 miles"), multiple LRU's, can be used interchangably in both a2a a2g modes, LPI frequency-hopping (the AWG-9 couldn't do this).


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 27, 2008)

I agree. Love the soundtrack! Queen One Vision, Twisted Sister, good stuff. Far fetched movie, but I thought it was cool in it's day.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 27, 2008)

Don't forget the AESA also has comm and offensive capabilities. Add to your typical multiple target paint and track possibilities for the following:

Direct and jam resistant air-to-air communications for joint tactical information sharing.

Beem steered RF jamming capability.

Radar tracking and data spoofing.

Potential for offensive avionics destructiion/interruption via directed RF emmissions.

AESA is a game changer. And everybody wants it. Even Eurofighter won't get it until Tranche III.


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Because Soren says so, I don't know....
> 
> 
> 
> Quit it now Joe! What do you know? You only have actual real world flight experience in high speed twin engined fighter jets, that does not come close to "real world book knowledge"!



Fine, since you're of the opinion I have nothing to contribute with I'
ll shut up.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Fine, since you're of the opinion I have nothing to contribute with I'
> ll shut up.



You frequently have a lot to contribute


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

Bill said:


> I would start with L/D but that would be silly me.



Oh, I guess the below doesn't qualify as L/D related:

_" However the higher AR of the F-14's wing gives it *more lift and less drag pr. area*, which is also what allows it to land on a carrier while the F-15 would be completely incapable of that because of it's higher stall speed."_



Bill said:


> If you wish to maintain the AR of the F-14 in transonic to supersonic is greater - prove it (it will be tough).



Hmmm... I guess this didn't make sense to you:

_"The wing sweep action works automatically on the F-14, adjusting according to the flight mode of the a/c. If entering a tight turn the sweep is varied automatically to give the best results. This gives it better turn performance."_

But then again, what do I know, I'm not an aerodynamics expert who bases all his comments on "facts" like you are...

As for span loading, again:

_"Aspect ratio and planform are powerful indicators of the general performance of a wing, although the aspect ratio as such is only a secondary indicator. The wingspan is the crucial component of the performance. This is because an airplane derives its lift from a roughly cylindrical tube of air that is affected by the craft as it moves, and the diameter of that cylindrical tube is equal to the wingspan. Thus a large wingspan is working on a large cylinder of air, and a small wingspan is working on a small cylinder of air. The smaller cylinder of air must be pushed downward by a greater amount in order to produce an equal upward force; the aft-leaning component of this change in velocity is proportional to the induced drag. Therefore a large downward velocity is proportional to a large induced drag.

The interaction between undisturbed air outside the cylindrical tube of air, and the downward-moving cylindrical tube of air occurs at the wing's tips, and can be seen as wingtip vortices."_

Oh but then again the above is just opinion based, not "facts" like you rely on.

I bow humply to your superior knowledge.


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

Double post


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

drgondog said:


> You frequently have a lot to contribute



Yeah, opinions and guesswork in your opinion..

Even when I've made it clear that while I know a lot on the subject I am no expert in airplane aerodynamics, you're still more busy hammering at me, patronizing me and calling me names, instead of actually trying to figure out what it is I'm saying (Incase my terminology is incorrect) and then providing what you know after that. No, you just have to throw in the patronizing remarks as well pull up out-of-context phrases from old arguments to make it look like you're the sh*t and I'm stupid even to be debating with you.

I truly wish one could have a friendly FACT based debate with you Bill, but it has been impossible for me so far, even when letting you know that I'm noting every word you write as educated information or guesswork, cause you completely ignore what I write, even purposely misunderstanding some of the clear cut out fact based information I provide. Now I'd love to be educated when wrong, but I can do without being ridiculed for doing nothing but reading what you write and responding with what I know.

Afterall I think everyone everywhere should remember that unless you're directly involved with the subject at hand then you ONLY know what you've read about it. Math is fact based, but again you only know what you've read about it.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Oh, I guess the below doesn't qualify as L/D related:
> 
> _" However the higher AR of the F-14's wing gives it *more lift and less drag pr. area*, which is also what allows it to land on a carrier while the F-15 would be completely incapable of that because of it's higher stall speed."_
> 
> ...



Ok


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Okay, let's take a look at the two radar systems in question:
> 
> AWG-9: For it's time, the most powerful airborne radar system in the world; able to track up to 24 targets at a time, and launch missles at 6 of them at one time. Range well in excess of 100 nm. However, it is based and built using analog technology from the '60's, was maintenance intensive, and was completely incapapable of being used in an a2g mode (which is why the F-14D got the AN/APG-71 digital multi-mode radar); could probably best be compared to the RP-25 _Smerch_ radar on the later MiG-25 interceptor.
> 
> AN/APG-63(V)3: Completely digital, multi-mode AESA technology, classified range (the broadly similar radar in the F-22, the AN/APG-77, has a range "in excess of 320 miles"), multiple LRU's, can be used interchangably in both a2a a2g modes, LPI frequency-hopping (the AWG-9 couldn't do this).



You did not need to explain that to me. I was being sarcastic.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Yeah, opinions and guesswork in your opinion..
> 
> Even when I've made it clear that while I know a lot on the subject I am no expert in airplane aerodynamics, you're still more busy hammering at me, patronizing me and calling me names, instead of actually trying to figure out what it is I'm saying (Incase my terminology is incorrect) and then providing what you know after that. No, you just have to throw in the patronizing remarks as well pull up out-of-context phrases from old arguments to make it look like you're the sh*t and I'm stupid even to be debating with you.
> 
> ...



Lol. Well I have a minor in math so I haven't read as much about it as I have aero and fluid mechanics. What have you a.) read about Calculus, Vector Analysis, Differential Equations, Tensor Analysis, Matrix Theory, Chaos Theory, and Control Theory. Are you going to lecture my lack of knowledge based on 'book learning'?

As to the practical - I was actively engaged in the theoretical, and hand's on practical side of aerodynamics, aero structures, and airframe design from 1968-1975 at Lockheed, Bell and at GE. At GE I was 'on loan' as a consultant to TI for aero and structures work on the early LGB's for Mk 82-84's. At GE I was also the AFCAM Program manager in which the DoD was attempting to unify Group Technologies and Parts Classification methods to improve DoD 7000 methods Costing and Program pricing alignment for all the General Contractors.

I did everything from pioneer relaxation methodology (a math 'thingy') for potential flow models of aerodynamic pressure distributions, to NASTRAN structural models and advanced R&D. This doesn't include Co-Op work at NASA and Boeing as an undergrad.

I am pretty far removed from 'just reading about it...but you ARE correct that I have been away from it for 30 years. How long have you 'been away from it'??

What have YOU been doing to gather your credentials?

If you want to understand why we don't have friendly debates, look in the mirror as well as your posturing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Fine, since you're of the opinion I have nothing to contribute with I'
> ll shut up.



Oh I did not say that, you do contribute quite a bit.

I just think it is funny how you will argue with someone just for the sake of argueing, and wont back down even when you are wrong.

There have been times you argue with people who have flown specific aircraft or similar aircraft...


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 27, 2008)

Bill, the only thing I understood from your last post was MATH THINGY!


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

> So, Soren. A U-2 has a 103 ft wingspan, an aspect ratio of 10.6. Is your thesis that the smaller 'stream tube' of the F-14 as evidenced by either the 38 ft swept wing or 64 ft extended wing is superior in efficiency to the U-2?



Nope, that's not at all what I'm saying. The U-2's wing provides more lift less drag pr. area than the F-14's, the higher AR makes sure of that. It's the very same thing that makes the F-14's wing more efficient than either the F-15's or F-16's.



> Would you further advance that induced drag of the U-2 is greater? What opinion would you care to advance regarding L/D of the antiquated, non computer controlled, wing of the U-2 in contrast to the F-14?



Bill have you at all been reading what I write ???!

No ofcourse the Cdi wont be higher for the U-2, it'll be lower, again because of the higher AR. A higher AR means a higher L/D ratio.



> Would you say that the tip vortex strength of a U-2 is greater than the F-14?



Again no.

Tell me do you understand what this means:
_"Aspect ratio and planform are powerful indicators of the general performance of a wing, although the aspect ratio as such is only a secondary indicator. The wingspan is the crucial component of the performance. This is because an airplane derives its lift from a roughly cylindrical tube of air that is affected by the craft as it moves, and the diameter of that cylindrical tube is equal to the wingspan. Thus a large wingspan is working on a large cylinder of air, and a small wingspan is working on a small cylinder of air. The smaller cylinder of air must be pushed downward by a greater amount in order to produce an equal upward force; the aft-leaning component of this change in velocity is proportional to the induced drag. Therefore a large downward velocity is proportional to a large induced drag."_

If you do, then why are you asking me these questions ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2008)

drgondog said:


> If you want to understand why we don't have friendly debates, look in the mirror as well as your posturing.



I think that about sums it up.

Now having said that. I think that most people on this forum are intelligent eneogh to piece together the pieces and walk away from your discussions with Soren having learned something new.

In the end the discussions are rather interesting and pretty good.


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2008)

> That is correct Soren.



Well, you certainly are an arrogant fella, I'll give you that!



> If you want to understand why we don't have friendly debates, look in the mirror as well as your posturing.



Oh I am so sorry for being offended when being called stupid, that is so wrong of me, I apologize Bill. You are in your full right to start an argument by calling others names, it is my job to take full responsibility for that, I mean I after all provoked you into it right ?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You did not need to explain that to me. I was being sarcastic.



I could tell (and, actually, I thought your response was pretty funny; it's like when you ask a kid "Why?" he just says "Because!"). 

And my "explanation" was not necessarilly directed at you, but the forum in general (just putting my "two cents" in).


----------



## parsifal (Oct 27, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Okay, let's take a look at the two radar systems in question:
> 
> AWG-9: For it's time, the most powerful airborne radar system in the world; able to track up to 24 targets at a time, and launch missles at 6 of them at one time. Range well in excess of 100 nm. However, it is based and built using analog technology from the '60's, was maintenance intensive, and was completely incapapable of being used in an a2g mode (which is why the F-14D got the AN/APG-71 digital multi-mode radar); could probably best be compared to the RP-25 _Smerch_ radar on the later MiG-25 interceptor.
> 
> AN/APG-63(V)3: Completely digital, multi-mode AESA technology, classified range (the broadly similar radar in the F-22, the AN/APG-77, has a range "in excess of 320 miles"), multiple LRU's, can be used interchangably in both a2a a2g modes, LPI frequency-hopping (the AWG-9 couldn't do this).



Hi Sod

I dont know where Soren was going with his comments, but i would just like to point out that the AWG-9 was not the latest in F-14 radar development, just as the AN/APG-63 was not the first word in F-15 radar development. As you point out, the radar in use in the F-14Ds was the APG-71 

(From wiki) "The APG-71 was a 1980s upgrade of the AWG-9 for use on the F-14D. It incorporates technology and common modules developed for the APG-70 radar used in the F-15E Strike Eagle, providing significant improvements in (digital) processing speed, mode flexibility, clutter rejection, and detection range. The system features a low-sidelobe antenna, a sidelobe-blanking guard channel, and monopulse angle tracking; all of which are intended to make the radar less vulnerable to jamming.

The system itself is capable of a 460 mile (740 km) range, but the antenna design limits this to only 230 miles (370 km). Use of datalinked data allows two or more F-14D's to operate the system at its maximum range.

Hughes delivered enough APG-71 radars and spares to equip 55 F-14Ds before the program was scaled back as a cost-cutting measure and eventually canceled. The F-14 was officially retired from United States Navy service on September 22, 2006, with the last flight occurring October 4, 2006. The last navy squadron utilizing the F-14 was (VF-31)."

If you wanted to compare the AWG-9 with its F-15 contemporaies, ie the radar fitouts to the early eagles of the 1970s, I think you would find the Hughes radar to be far superior to that fitted to the early Eagles. If you wanted to compare the late 80s versions of the Tomcat (the F-14Ds) with the equivalent time period Eagles, I think you would again find the Tomcat to possess superior radar again. Its just that the Eagle has been stretched to the "super eagle" that explains its later superiority over the 'cat electronic fitouts.....


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 27, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Hi Sod
> 
> I dont know where Soren was going with his comments, but i would just like to point out that the AWG-9 was not the latest in F-14 radar development, just as the AN/APG-63 was not the first word in F-15 radar development. As you point out, the radar in use in the F-14Ds was the APG-71
> 
> (If you wanted to compare the AWG-9 with its F-15 contemporaies, ie the radar fitouts to the early eagles of the 1970s, I think you would find the Hughes radar to be far superior to that fitted to the early Eagles. If you wanted to compare the late 80s versions of the Tomcat (the F-14Ds) with the equivalent time period Eagles, I think you would again find the Tomcat to possess superior radar again. Its just that the Eagle has been stretched to the "super eagle" that explains its later superiority over the 'cat electronic fitouts.....



I'm not sure where he was going, either, but he did mention those two radar systems by name, so that was my starting point. 

Yes, the AWG-9 was probably superior to the first-generation AN/APG-63 the F-15A had; it cetainly had superior range (at least double that of the -63), but I don't know if it had better look-down/shoot-down capability (for which the -63 was designed). 

The later AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radar, as fitted to late-model F-15C MSIP's, actually has many parts in common with the AN/APG-73 and AN/APG-79, as fitted to the F-18C and F-18E/F/G, respectively.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Nope, that's not at all what I'm saying. The U-2's wing provides more lift less drag pr. area than the F-14's, the higher AR makes sure of that. It's the very same thing that makes the F-14's wing more efficient than either the F-15's or F-16's.
> 
> *But the AR of the U-2 is less than the B-29 example I just gave you... and you just skipped right on by that one. The B-29 has a higher lift loading (or wing loading if you wish) - so it definitely contributes more to the tip vortex. And the B-29 has a larger 'stream tube' per your definition. By your implication of what you think a stream tube is...
> 
> ...



See above. And comment why a B-17 with lower wing loading and same span as a U-2 has a less efficient wing according to your 'theory' of span diameter tubes.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well, you certainly are an arrogant fella, I'll give you that!
> 
> *You are calling me 'arrogant'?? - interesting*
> 
> Oh I am so sorry for being offended when being called stupid, that is so wrong of me, I apologize Bill. You are in your full right to start an argument by calling others names, it is my job to take full responsibility for that, I mean I after all provoked you into it right ?



Why yes, I believe you have grasped the situation very well. BTW ignorant is different from stupid. If I called you stupid I apologise.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 27, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> I'm not sure where he was going, either, but he did mention those two radar systems by name, so that was my starting point.
> 
> Yes, the AWG-9 was probably superior to the first-generation AN/APG-63 the F-15A had; it cetainly had superior range (at least double that of the -63), but I don't know if it had better look-down/shoot-down capability (for which the -63 was designed).
> 
> The later AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radar, as fitted to late-model F-15C MSIP's, actually has many parts in common with the AN/APG-73 and AN/APG-79, as fitted to the F-18C and F-18E/F/G, respectively.



I would make the folowing modification to my comments in the light of your reply....because the two aircraft have different roles, they have different radar capabilities. What you are saying about "look down, shoot down capability does hold true when analysing the F-14 capability. They were not good at engaging from a superior height. Tomcats preferred to shoot from below, to avoid sea clutter effects on their radars. Shooting "down" had a significant downgrading effect on the efficiency of the system

I found this general link about the F-15, which people might find interesting 

F-15 Eagle - Military Aircraft 

A similar critique on the F-14 A/D can be found here:
AirToAirCombat.Com: Grumman F-14D Tomcat in Detail


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 28, 2008)

A good point was brought up, through all this debating the F-14 vas F-15's advantages, the F-16 has been almost forgotten.

It should be more agile than the other 2 (relaxed stability), except maybe at low speeds where the F-14's higher lift/drag comes in. The thrust/weight is somewhere between the F-15C and F-14D. (closer to the F-15) Wingloading is significantly higher than the F-15, but this alone doesn't say a whole lot. (the F-16's wing is thinner on average too, but the different planform and AR -and the F-16's root extentions- leave the question open)

The lower cost and maintenence of the F-16 has already been established.

How do the avionics and armament capabilities compare? (to both the F-14 and F-15)


----------



## krieghund (Oct 28, 2008)

*To SoD Stitch:* Yes at long BVR the F-14/Aim-54 spalshed the F-15s. Remember the phoenix climbs to high altitude for a long range shot so it has manuver energy once the motor burns out, and the target my not have observed the launch (if he could see that far) so the missile would be falling from above using its strapdown inertial guidance until it went active. Once the F-14s were at medium range the F-15s closed the gap for lunch even though the F-14 had a better Instantaneous turn rate but the F-15 retains energy a bit better and It's all over.
I can't reveal the F-16 pod types but it does exactly that and really screws with european radars as well.
Yes the F-16 will win in a knife fight cause it bleeds off exactly half the energy that the F-15 does for the same g load, so just like the Yak3 vs the fw190 you pull it up for a wing over and defeat the target.
The delta wings are also at a disadvantage, if they pull hard they have just pissed away alot of energy. I have a chart of the Mir2000 vs F16Bk50 and the mirage just doesn't have the thrust to recover...the Typhoon does have more excess thrust but the g loss + the thrust makes it bleed like the F-16.
anyway its purely academic since the f-14 is retired and some moron had them scrapped. Each aircraft was made for a specific time and purpose and they did it well. But most important, its not how big the dog is in the fight, but how big the fight is in the dog!!!


----------



## Soren (Oct 28, 2008)

> Once the F-14s were at medium range the F-15s closed the gap for lunch even though the F-14 had a better Instantaneous turn rate but the F-15 retains energy a bit better and It's all over.



Well that confirms what I've been told and what I've said, the F-14 IS better than the F-15 in the horizontal, but the F-15 is better in the vertical. According to my friend F-14 pilots were taught to make a hard breaking turn in the horizontal if up against a/c such as the Tiger which the trainers sometimes fly in. 

But that put aside the F-14 is better IMO purely because of its radar and armament.

In a scissors fight the F-16 beats them both it seems.


----------



## Soren (Oct 28, 2008)

Bill said:


> See above. And comment why a B-17 with lower wing loading and same span as a U-2 has a less efficient wing according to your 'theory' of span diameter tubes.



The B-17's wing produces less lift more drag pr. area than the U-2's wing, first of all because of it's lower AR, making it a less efficient wing than the U-2's. Furthermore the engine placement on the B-17's wing disturbs the span wise lift distribution over it and creates additional drag, both induced and parasite drag, making it even more inefficient.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well that confirms what I've been told and what I've said, the F-14 IS better than the F-15 in the horizontal, but the F-15 is better in the vertical. According to my friend F-14 pilots were taught to make a hard breaking turn in the horizontal if up against a/c such as the Tiger which the trainers sometimes fly in.
> 
> But that put aside the F-14 is better IMO purely because of its radar and armament.
> 
> In a scissors fight the F-16 beats them both it seems.



Once inside the merge, what did he say about the final outcome?



> The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, *once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. *(No brag just fact)



Agree on the -16. When you mention Tiger, are you talking about the F-5?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 28, 2008)

krieghund said:


> *To SoD Stitch:* Yes at long BVR the F-14/Aim-54 spalshed the F-15s. Remember the phoenix climbs to high altitude for a long range shot so it has manuver energy once the motor burns out, and the target my not have observed the launch (if he could see that far) so the missile would be falling from above using its strapdown inertial guidance until it went active. Once the F-14s were at medium range the F-15s closed the gap for lunch even though the F-14 had a better Instantaneous turn rate but the F-15 retains energy a bit better and It's all over.



I knew the flight profile on the AIM-54 was parabolic; immediately after launch, the missle climbs until it's motor burns out, then coasts into the target. I believe the AIM-120C has a similar flight profile for long-range intercepts (but not short-range ones).


----------



## The Basket (Oct 28, 2008)

The RAF would have chosen the Tomcat if they could have had it.

But got the Tornado F3 todo the same job. Sigh.


----------



## renrich (Oct 28, 2008)

Krieghund, are the F14s in your example F14As or F14Ds with the GE engines? I have rather an extensive and comprehensive reference on the F14A with some information about the GE engines and the "Super Tomcat." Here are some interesting data: In level flight the automatic wing sweep causes the sweep to go from 20 degrees to the maximum of 68 deg at the rate of 7.5 deg/sec. This is reduced to just over 4 deg/sec at a loading of 7.5 gs. The wing sweep obviously moves the CL backwards to the point that the CL is well aft of the CG. This causes a download moment which must be counterbalanced with the horizontal tail. This in turn causes excessive stability at super sonic speeds which reduces maneuverability. Because of the pancake the lifting area of the Tomcat is about 40% greater than the defined wing area which reduces bending moments in both wings and fuselage. It also produces an effective wing loading vastly lower than the reference wing loading. Experienced pilots transitioning from the F8 and F4 called the Tomcat amazingly controllable, easy and vice free when it came to flying the Tomcat. The F4 could be difficult at low speeds, high loads and high AOA or any combination of the three.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> The B-17's wing produces less lift more drag pr. area than the U-2's wing, first of all because of it's lower AR, making it a less efficient wing than the U-2's. Furthermore the engine placement on the B-17's wing disturbs the span wise lift distribution over it and creates additional drag, both induced and parasite drag, making it even more inefficient.



Soren - you missed the point in contrasting U-2 to B-17 with lower wing loading and lower aspect ratio, and contrasting the U-2 with a B-29 which had a higher wing loading and higher aspect ratio.

You keep trying to tie 'efficiency' of a wing to a nebulous concept of stream tube whose diameter is the same as a wing span - then traipse off into concepts not in fact, and forgetting what you demonstrated you once knew.

Namely -
1. Induced Drag = drag created by the lift acting on the airfoil. 
The equation for induced drag is independent of span. 
It is (1/k)^^2*CL^^2/(pi*AR*e) where 1/k = 1/2*rho*V^^2. At same altitude and engagement speed 1/k may be removed from the comparisons to arrive at proportional relationships.

2. The CL of all these a/c at the same engagement speed, same altitude and same place is proportional to:
F-14 Extended Wing -----> CL proportional to L/S ---> 61,000/565---> 108
F-14 Swept Wing --------> CL proportional to L/S ---> 61,000/565 ---> 108
Wing area the same but one swept and one not)
AR=2.55 and 7.2

F-15 Wing ---------------> CL proportional to L/S --->44,500/608 ----> 73
AR=2.9

F-16 Wing ---------------> CL proportional to L/S --->26,500/300 -----> 88
AR=3.4

This says nothing about L/D of the respective ships or the 'efficiency'

3. Back to 1. to compare CDi for each ship at same entry speed, altitude and location (drop 1/2*rho*V^^2 as they are all the same. If 'e' is approximately the same for swept, then"

CDi is proportional to CL**2/(pi*AR)

F-14 Induced Drag proportional to (108^^2)/AR = (108^^2)/2.55----> 4574
F-14 Induced Drag for extended (108^^2)/7.2------> 1620

F-15 Induced Drag proportional to (73^^2)/AR = (73^^2)/2.9 -------> 1837

F-16 Induced Drag proportional to (88^^2)/AR = (88^^2)/3.4 -------> 2277

So, for these simplistic events, level, same altitude, same entry speed, same relative wing efficiency factor 'e'.

The F-14 in lower speed range with extended wings has ~ 88% CDi of F-15 and 71% of the F-16 - 

With Swept wings the F-14 is at a huge disadvantage to both the F-15 and F-16 with ~ 4574/1837 ~ 2.48 x CDi of F-15 and 4574/2277 ~ 2.0 x Cdi of the F-16.

This helps a little bit as we know that the swept wing F-14 has a lot more induced drag at the same velocities of the other two ships, but -

CD parasite should dominate higher speeds including even 350kts range but your thesis has been all about vortex strength/tip vortex advantage of the F-14 because of a 'larger stream tube' presumably of the extended wing and it has NOTHING to do with span but everything to do with lift loading and aspect ratio - IF
the Cl/Cd for all the a/c are equal. 

If not the case you have to look at the data for each ship carefully to predict performance.

Induced Drag is all about the drag created by Lift. The 'downwash' vector is all about the strength of the circulation, the characteristics of the spanwise lift distribution and the effects of a three dimensional wing. If you look at most CL/CD polars and/or the d(CL)/d(AoA) slope ( the derivative of CL with respect to AoA) , the effects of AR between 1 and say 5 are very significant in improving the slope, beyond that the increase of the CL slope is not changed so much with increases in AR.. You'll find that to be true if you examine a lot of airfoil data corrected by AR. Airfoil section data absent AR corrections is for a 'perfect wing' of infinite AR and no induced drag.

If you don't KNOW L/D for each then you can only speculate from your belief system which a/c is 'more efficient'. That was why I drew you into a discussion comparing different a/c with same wing span but different Lift Loadings at 1 g, as well as different a/c with different (but reversed) AR and Lift Loadings. 

But please apply your stream tube philosophy to calculate wingefficiency, induced drag and manuever relevance.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> You keep trying to tie 'efficiency' of a wing to a nebulous concept of stream tube whose diameter is the same as a wing span - then traipse off into concepts not in fact, and forgetting what you demonstrated you once knew.



Nope, I never tied span loading to efficiency, that again is putting words into my mouth. The span loading is according to some a good indicator of a/c turn performance, that is all I said.

Oh and about your comparison between the F-14, -15 -16, you missed the fact that the effective wing area of the F-14 is much larger than that of the others because of it's lift body design I mentioned earlier in this thread, approx. 40% greater as renrich says.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Once inside the merge, what did he say about the final outcome?



B&Z is the magic word FLYBOYJ. The F-15s took the fight into the vertical and beat the F-14s.

Like Krieghund says:
_"Once the F-14s were at medium range the F-15s closed the gap for lunch even though the F-14 had a better Instantaneous turn rate but the F-15 retains energy a bit better and It's all over."_




> Agree on the -16. When you mention Tiger, are you talking about the F-5?



Yup.



renrich said:


> Krieghund, are the F14s in your example F14As or F14Ds with the GE engines? I have rather an extensive and comprehensive reference on the F14A with some information about the GE engines and the "Super Tomcat." Here are some interesting data: In level flight the automatic wing sweep causes the sweep to go from 20 degrees to the maximum of 68 deg at the rate of 7.5 deg/sec. This is reduced to just over 4 deg/sec at a loading of 7.5 gs. The wing sweep obviously moves the CL backwards to the point that the CL is well aft of the CG. This causes a download moment which must be counterbalanced with the horizontal tail. This in turn causes excessive stability at super sonic speeds which reduces maneuverability. Because of the pancake the lifting area of the Tomcat is about 40% greater than the defined wing area which reduces bending moments in both wings and fuselage. It also produces an effective wing loading vastly lower than the reference wing loading. Experienced pilots transitioning from the F8 and F4 called the Tomcat amazingly controllable, easy and vice free when it came to flying the Tomcat. The F4 could be difficult at low speeds, high loads and high AOA or any combination of the three.



Yes, the lift body design.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 29, 2008)

Did the F-15 or F-16 benefit from a "lifing body effect," either intentional or not? The fuselage of the F-15 looks particularly similar to that of the F-14.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> B&Z is the magic word FLYBOYJ. The F-15s took the fight into the vertical and beat the F-14s.


Amd they'll do it every time if an engagement is played out within the merge and the F-15 driver knows what he's doing (which again would be most of the time). Again the F-14 was a great fleet defender and bomber killer and it could take on some fighters and win most of the time, it its not going to consistently win against an F-15 and I think that was clearly shown.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 29, 2008)

renrich: The F14s at ACEVAL/AIMVAL of course were 'A' models with AWG-9 instead of APG-71. My data does show maked manuverability of the 'D' over the 'A' but when it uses it's body lift with an equivalent wing area of over 1000 ft2 it is still too heavy but it does have a high instantaneous turn rate. However one point is when then wings are at a sweep of 45 deg or less it is an indicator of a low energy state and a give away. The F-14 was one of the first so-called spin proof aircraft. It was a fine aircraft that could things others couldn't do. Sometimes these comparisons can be over the top....kinda like, " a Spit is far more manuverable than a P-51!!----Oh, yeah, will do it over Berlin---Nah Nah!!!. 

Since the F-14 is now History except for the some quantity in the Iranian AF and the half dozen with the Russian AF I might as well put its numbers up. I will check with my ITAR rep to make sure....the fine is 10 years or $10M or both for ITAR violations.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Nope, I never tied span loading to efficiency, that again is putting words into my mouth. The span loading is according to some a good indicator of a/c turn performance, that is all I said.
> 
> *Babble from your post #46
> 
> ...



Lift due to Wing/Wing area and lifting body contribution are separate concepts. Lifting body contributions are nice at high AoA but also create a lot of drag - in general far less efficient with respect to L/D than the wing

I didn't 'miss' it Soren. 

The simple fact is that all three have characteristics of fuselage design to contribute as a lifting body in high AoA. I didn't fool with this part of the discussion because I don't have the data - a 'fact based' thingy - and neither do you. This represents your usual tactic of being confronted on BS and bringing more 'stuff' with no facts to reinforce your earlier BS. 

So what is your data/sources to make the statement/claim for both the lifting body contrasts as well as the associated L/D to prove your claim?

Further we didn't have data on the actual Cd0 for subsonic and supersonic profiles to help us talk about energy bleed in high G manuevers. Nor has anyone presented the wing/body L/D for 'true efficiency' for any of these birds or wave drag characteristics or a whole lot of other stuff.

What we believe we do know is that for the F-14 wing fully extended it has a slightly lower Lift Loading than the F-15 and F-16... but dramatically Higher when fully swept. We know the F-14 has a significantly lower T/W, can't accelerate or climb with either of F-15 and F-16.

As a result, based on proportional Lift loading we know that Induced Drag for extended F-14 wing is lower than F-15 and F-15 but the swept F-14 wing has much higher Induced Drag than either of the other two.

We do know that from a base reference, higher lift/sq ft value translates to Higher Lift loading and further translates to higher Induced Drag.

So Soren - lay out your assumptions and facts and demonstrate that the F-14 is superior in the Horizontal if you wish. 

If you choose to use a free body diagram with weight, thrust, drag - make sure we understand the difference between initial turn rate and sustained turn rate at max G - and do it for at least one subsonic and one medium supersonic flight profile. Further, make sure the Cd0 and Cdparasite is factual for the velocity and required AoA in both flight regimes.

If you have that, you have a reasonable set of data to do a rough model. With a reasonable model based on factual data and appropriate flight mechanics calculations you will be in a position to at least lend credibility to your claims and Thesis.

We know the ceiling of the F-15 is much higher than the F-14 and was designed for 9G's (as well as F-16).

What we do have I presented for you above, as well as a little background on Induced Drag and how it relates to not only AR but also Lift Loading - but not span per se except for the definition of AR. (AR=span^^2/area of wing)

Fire away


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Did the F-15 or F-16 benefit from a "lifing body effect," either intentional or not? The fuselage of the F-15 looks particularly similar to that of the F-14.



Yes - but I sure don't have the data.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Yes - but I sure don't have the data.



I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but I know the "nodding" intakes on the F-15 actually provided a substantial amount of lift when they were in the "up" position, and also at high AOA; this is part of the reason the Israeli pilot was actually able to land his a/c after losing almost all of his right wing in an air-to-air collision with an A-4 in 1983.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but I know the "nodding" intakes on the F-15 actually provided a substantial amount of lift when they were in the "up" position, and also at high AOA; this is part of the reason the Israeli pilot was actually able to land his a/c after losing almost all of his right wing in an air-to-air collision with an A-4 in 1983.



I remember that - didn't know the 'technical reason' he was able to maintain control but I do believe that is the single greatest feat of pilot skill that I recall.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 29, 2008)

The ability to recover that IAF F-15I was not solely based upon aerodynamic qualities and pilot skill (though certainly most impressive). My understanding is the F-15 FCS contains algorithms that allow some rudimentary adaptation of the flight control logic. This allowed the FCS to assist in the modification of control surfaces positioning to match commanded pilot input. As a result of these and similiar incidents (F-18 losing vertical fin and Souix City DC-10 comes to mind), a more focused research has been (publicly) untertaken to ascertain better large scale damage tolerance via FCS/FADEC integration.


----------



## renrich (Oct 29, 2008)

Same reference as that on F14 gives the F15 at takeoff weight of 41,500 pounds gives a wing loading of 681 pounds/SF. When half fuel is used that drops to 571 pounds/SF. Says nothing about the fuselage providing lift.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

The F-14's fuselage is shaped like an airfoil, unlike the F-15 or F-16's. The F-14's fuselage is actually pretty thin, and the engines a seperated to create a large airfoil like body, the lift body design, generating a very large amount of the lift the a/c generates. The fences on the top of the fuselage are put there for a reason as well, the a/c acting like one big wing.









drgondog said:


> I didn't 'miss' it Soren.



Yes you did, you just don't want to admit it cause you see it totally ruins your comparison.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2008)

krieghund said:


> and the half dozen with the Russian AF


I think that was proven to be a myth - photographs photoshopped.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Amd they'll do it every time if an engagement is played out within the merge and the F-15 driver knows what he's doing (which again would be most of the time). Again the F-14 was a great fleet defender and bomber killer and it could take on some fighters and win most of the time, it its not going to consistently win against an F-15 and I think that was clearly shown.



I agree.

All I wanted to point out was that the F-14 turns better in the horizontal. But that's not at all what makes it better IMO, that would be its radar armament, if the timeframe is right.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2008)

From Wiki...


Some aircraft with wings also employ bodies that generate lift. The Short SC.7 Skyvan produces 30% of the total lift from the fuselage, almost as much as the 35% each of the wings produces. *Fighters like the F-15 Eagle also produce substantial lift from the wide fuselage between the wings.*
Apparently, because the F-15 Eagle's wide fuselage is so efficient at lift, an F-15 was able to land successfully with only one wing. (Videos available on YouTube).

On the summer of 1983, an Israeli F-15 staged a mock dogfight with Skyhawks for training purposes, near Nahal Tzin in the Negev desert. During the exercise, one of the Skyhawks miscalculated and collided forcefully with the F-15's wing root. The F-15's pilot was aware that the wing had been seriously damaged, but decided to try and land in a nearby airbase, not knowing the extent of his wing damage. It was only after he had landed, when he climbed out of the cockpit and looked backward, that the pilot realized what had happened: the wing had been completely torn off the plane, and he had landed the plane with only one wing attached. A few months later, the damaged F-15 had been given a new wing, and returned to operational duty in the squadron. The engineers at McDonnell Douglas had a hard time believing the story of the one-winged landing: as far as their planning models were concerned, this was an impossibility.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

Here's what I got:

_""On May 1, 1983, during an Israeli Air Force training dogfight, a F-15D collided with a A-4 Skyhawk. Unknown to pilot Zivi Nedivi, and his copilot, the right wing of the Eagle was torn off roughly two feet (60 cm) from the fuselage. The pilot managed to regain control of the aircraft and prevented it from stalling, ultimately landing the crippled aircraft successfully. The F-15 was able to stay in the air because of the lift generated by the large horizontal surface area of the fuselage, the large and effective stabilators and the surviving wing. Landing at twice the normal speed to maintain the necessary lift, although the tailhook was torn off completely during the landing, Zivi managed to bring his F-15 to a complete stop approximately 20 feet (6 m) from the end of the runway. He was later quoted as saying "(I) probably would have ejected if I knew what had happened."_


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> The F-14's fuselage is shaped like an airfoil, unlike the F-15 or F-16's. The F-14's fuselage is actually pretty thin, and the engines a seperated to create a large airfoil like body, the lift body design, generating a very large amount of the lift the a/c generates. The fences on the top of the fuselage are put there for a reason as well, the a/c acting like one big wing.
> 
> Yes you did, you just don't want to admit it cause you see it totally ruins your comparison.



Did you see my post 157 before your 162 - in reply to KK on that question?

Ahh - you care to venture an opinion as to why the F-14 cannot compete with either the F-16 or F-15 in ROC - as an 'all wing design'. Surely that would help compensate for a lower T/W ratio.

Do you have any data regarding lift contribution as a function of AoA for any of these ships to produce a fact base comparison of the wing-body

You care to post the L/D for the F-14 wing body versus the other two to demonstrate that the incremental lift of the F-14 fuse overcomes the F-15 body lift at high AoA? 

Do you have a Drag Polar for comparison purposes to back up your claim?

Is your primary fact base your mark one eyeball or do you have data?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Here's what I got:
> 
> _""On May 1, 1983, during an Israeli Air Force training dogfight, a F-15D collided with a A-4 Skyhawk. Unknown to pilot Zivi Nedivi, and his copilot, the right wing of the Eagle was torn off roughly two feet (60 cm) from the fuselage. The pilot managed to regain control of the aircraft and prevented it from stalling, ultimately landing the crippled aircraft successfully. The F-15 was able to stay in the air because of the lift generated by the large horizontal surface area of the fuselage, the large and effective stabilators and the surviving wing. Landing at twice the normal speed to maintain the necessary lift, although the tailhook was torn off completely during the landing, Zivi managed to bring his F-15 to a complete stop approximately 20 feet (6 m) from the end of the runway. He was later quoted as saying "(I) probably would have ejected if I knew what had happened."_



Would you say that the F-15 does NOT have body lift characteristics?


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

On the F-14:
_"According to Bill Gunston, the F-14 would employ essentially swinging versions of the same wings used by Grumman's A-6 Intruder subsonic bomber[citation needed]. It had not only a large wing area, but a wide, flat pancake body to increase lift and lower drag. Flaps and slats could be deployed at full forward sweep for full maneuverability even at combat speeds, while special maneuvering flaps were designed, though later disabled after tests showing reduced stability. This gives an edge to the F-14 at very slow and supersonic speeds compared to fixed wings optimized for low supersonic speeds.[10] Engineering manager Bob Kress says that the wings gave very good turning performance. Maneuverability was predicted to be twice that of the F-4, especially at high speed and altitude, later verified in tests against F-4Js.[11]

The F-14 with wings at full forward sweep resembles a huge bat. Since the adoption of the F-14, the fighter slang term "bat turn" has been used to describe a maximum G 180 degree turn in full afterburner, a signature tactic of Tomcat crews[citation needed]. Aviation writer Bill Gunston, however notes that opposing pilots have learned to read the F-14's wings to judge its energy status and speed."_


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Would you say that the F-15 does NOT have body lift characteristics?



No, but not near as much as the F-14.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> No, but not near as much as the F-14.


I knew you would say that!


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> No, but not near as much as the F-14.



And you quantify your 'feelings about this', How?

What is 'near as much', or 'slightly less' or 'far superior' in your world Soren?

You live in a world of extreme absolutes, and do not have the capacity to respond well when people question the 'irrefutable'..


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

> Ahh - you care to venture an opinion as to why the F-14 cannot compete with either the F-16 or F-15 in ROC - as an 'all wing design'. Surely that would help compensate for a lower T/W ratio.



No, not in a near vertical climb, a flying wing (Which the F-14 isn't) doesn't possess any advantage there at all, you should know that. A T/W ratio of more than 1, like that of the F-15, means you can climb vertically or very close to, which is much faster as apposed to doing it at say 60 degrees from the horizontal.

And YES the lifting body design does help the climb rate of the F-14, but not in the vertical.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

There's a reason the engines are seperated they way they are Bill, unlike on the F-15. And there's a reason for the fences on top of the F-14's body as-well.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> No, not in a near vertical climb, a flying wing (Which the F-14 isn't) doesn't possess any advantage there at all, you should know that. A T/W ratio of more than 1, like that of the F-15, means you can climb vertically or very close to, which is much faster as apposed to doing it at say 60 degrees from the horizontal.



Soren - a 'fying wing' has generally SUBSTANTIALLY less parasite drag - which is why the B-49 and the B-2 are such efficient airframes. 

If the wingbody combination of the F-14 remotely approached a flying wing in overall airframe efficiency, it would be a major advantage in energy bleed.. but guess what, the F-14 apparently loses energy faster that the F-16 and F-15.. 

so how do you explain that with the marvelous flying wing capability represented by the 'airfoil like (as you describe it) fuselage of the F-14?


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

> If the wingbody combination of the F-14 remotely approached a flying wing in overall airframe efficiency, it would be a major advantage in energy bleed.. *but guess what, the F-14 apparently loses energy faster that the F-16 and F-15.. *



And exactly how have you come to that conclusion ??

In the horizontal it gives it an advantage yes, but not in the vertical where the T/W is the dominant factor.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Yes you did, you just don't want to admit it cause you see it totally ruins your comparison.



Soren, this is exactly the typical post tenor from you that grates on people. It is one thing to disagree, but another to effectively call Drgondog a liar. You may have issue with Drgondog's conclusions, but to refute his conclusions one must engage with the argument logic.

I personally believe you are so damn hard headed that you are unable to admit that you cannot substantiate your argument to a level that is offered by the opposing side. To continue to debate your position without a commensurate technical refutation by yourself only serves to depict you as an insufferable "know-it-all" who bases his position upon emotion. Right or wrong, this only serves to paint your character as one steeped in arrogance and egotism.

You offer some good basis for discussion in support of the F-14. However, inability to admit that your knowledge in a given field just might be somewhat limited, or perhaps even one of your points might be fraught with technical errors, or maybe just one of your arguments cannot be substantiated by an area of science in which you might have technical ignorance frankly is tiresome. There are bigger dogs in the world than Soren the Almighty.

Sorry buddy, but when arguing logical conclusions based upon math, you either identify the mathematical error(s) or keep your mouth shut so that your ignorance of fluid dynamics does not become glaringly apparent to the masses. I don't purport to be a master in this area, but you don't see me issuing perjoratives to another forum members who clearly demonstrates a superior knowledge base for their argument derived from extensive professional experience. Perhaps you too might wish to take heed. To do otherwise only supports my second paragraph.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 29, 2008)

yup....guys this is a very interesting discussion, and i for one would really not like to see it terrminated for the dumbass reason that people are not able to respect the views of other members. Guys, these are just opinions, nobody is making you change your minds....but nobody can force another to change their minds either. And we are going to change nothing by simply discussing the issue. So, my two cents worth, show some respect for each other for christs sake...that means you soren...I know you have a lot of knowledge on a lot of things, but you have this way of getting on the wrong side of people which just goes wrong


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 29, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *I know you have a lot of knowledge on a lot of things*, but you have this way of getting on the wrong side of people which just goes wrong



Well said, parisfal. And for the record, I UTTERLY agree with the bold. Soren, you are a valuable member of this forum. And you do have an extensive knowledge base.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

Thanks for the kind words, but with all due respect Bill has made worse insinuations toward me than the one I made right there.

And I am not calling him a liar, but he's unwilling to admit his mistakes, which bothers me.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

You know this could be a VERY interesting debate if it went something like this:

*Soren:* _According to a friend of mine, a former Navy pilot, the F-14 Tomcat turns better than the F-18 F-15, the reason being that etc etc... _

*Bill:* _Well let me look into that, perhaps his words can be explained, perhaps the F-14 does turn better, perhaps it doesn't, let's look at the figures, speak of what we do know and what is said by different people etc etc..._


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 29, 2008)

Soren, you dolt, they aren’t kind words man! C’mon buddy.  You just don’t get it.

Here’s another from the Sound Barrier thread:


Soren said:


> Bill that is a lie, I never mentioned the Mustang, all I said was I doubt that the Spitfire ever reached Mach .9 in a dive, I think Mach .82 seems a lot more reasonable.



How many times are you going to commit this sin. You are in IFC weather and about to spiral in.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Soren, you dolt, they aren’t kind words man! C’mon buddy.  You just don’t get it.



Tell me something I don't know 



> How many times are you going to commit this sin. You are in IFC weather and about to spiral in.



Well I DIDN'T mention the Mustang, so what are you going to make of that ? 

I mean he hardheadedly claims that I made some claim regarding the Mustang's critical Mach number, but I infact never even mentioned the Mustang. He gets away with this all the time, claiming I said something I didn't.

PS: Note that in the very same thread he claimed that I lied about mixing up trailing edge Leading edge shockwaves..


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 29, 2008)

Okay, bud. Be careful. I can't help anymore.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

From another forum, some of it is quite interesting:

_"
QUOTE(Name Taker @ Jan 31 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]195405[/snapback] 
Theoretically the Eagle should win against the Tomcat. The Tomcat has the advantage of speed, while the Eagle has the advantage of mobility. I don't know who has the better weapons (Probably the Eagle, but the Pheonix is good) or is more stable. In the end though it's usually the pilot. 




The Eagle did not have the advantage in regards to agility. It had a wider envelope than the F-14A (Thanks to the F-14A's troublesome TF30s), however in more instances than not, the F-15 found it's self falling prey to the Tomcat WVR. When both aircraft first came online, they had the same weapon systems fundamentally. M61, AIM-9, and AIM-7. It wasn't until the AIM-120 was integrated into the F-15C that the Tomcat was given a serious disadvantage. Nevertheless, F-14B and F-14D could match not only the F-15 in a two-circle turning fight (The A could really only do horizontal), but it was more than a match for the F-16 family. A story related by Dave Parsons sums it up. "After landing after doing a Excersize against a F-16N, I remember the pilot telling me Do you know how BIG your intakes look when they're behind you?! They told us you couldn't turn with us!" 




QUOTE(Spartan 120 @ Jan 31 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]195445[/snapback] 

But not exclusively the pilot. The aircraft also makes a difference. Eagle Drivers had a pretty seriouys respect for the Tomcat WVR, at least the ones with the Big Engine, because it held its knots extremely well with its wings spread. The F110 engine also gave it a huge energy reserve to work with. 


You're right about 75% of the way. But the F-14A could just as easily give--and did give-- the F-15 a pretty bad reputation when they entered service. Another story by Dave Parsons 




QUOTE 


One of young guys at Langley went to the local paper after the movie Top Gun came out saying how mighty his F-15C was and how he, too, "ate Tomcats for breakfast". OPs O at VF-101 read it and called his counterpart at Langley and said "You know what has to happen..." So 2 Eagles vs 2 Tomcats (A models) with the young boaster with his Ops O and VF-101 OPs O with a student. Both engagements were 2 zip in favor of Tomcat with OPs O gunning is counterpart (coughed a motor in process but kept on closing for guns) and student taking out the proud Eagle driver. The phone debrief included the statement from the Eagle Ops O, "I don't think he'll be talking to the papers anymore". 






Another story by MDOG at Tomcat-Sunset.com 


QUOTE 
"As for the B in ACM, the motors NEVER stalled no matter how you jockeyed the throttles and the thing can go "over the top" at 230 kts. We would routinely use asymmetric thrust in a low speed, rolling scissors just to turn the aircraft quicker in the vertical. The only better jet in my opinion in a dogfight was the F-16N. Absolute best you could do against that Viper was a snap gun at the hard deck after a HARD, tight fight down to the deck. You'd better have killed him or he could get the vertical back before you could believe it or not, and then it's game over." 

Also interesting is his following remark, something a lot of us overlook when it comes to the F-14's performance: 

"Something else I should mention. Before [that] 1988 Red Flag deployment, no one could remember the USAF F-111s being run down by anything on the deck, but the Bs did it! In fact, I know Reb Edwards (former test pilot and astronaut) who did the low altitude, high-speed tests on the B at Pax River. He had it up to 830 kts at 500 ft and it was still accelerating when he pulled it back. What a machine!" 




A story retold by Tom Cooper, originally by a Iranian Tomcat pilot. 


QUOTE 
About "early F-14A vs early F-15A": 
Both the F-14A/F-15A have great visibility, both have roomy cockpits built for pilots, both have top of the line airframes, both have excellent state of the art avionics, both have powerful engines, and the F-15A/F-14A both have great maneuverability and this is well known by all, even the dumb Russians. The F-15A/F-14A, as aerodynamic platforms will both permit precise target tracking during air-to-air combat, and there are no real angle of attack limits on the F-15A or F-14A in or during combat (training yes). However, the F-15A is not as maneuverable as the F-14A, the F-15A comes close, but the F-14As variable geometry wings and airfoil qualities give the F-14A in fact a great advantage in aerial combat maneuvering every time against the F-15A. In fact at low level with 'pilots of equal skill' the F-14A will always win against the F-15A. 

Now you will ask me how do I know this as fact? 

Along with 3 other xxxx-pilots during 1975, I was honored to be allowed to take part in a joint USAF/USN air combat evaluation test in the United States. Our group were sent to just be observers but as the Americans found out we were xxxx-F-4E pilots we were soon (and willingly) drafted into the USAF and I was allowed to fly in the two seat F-15B during mock air-to-air combat at Nellis Air Force Base, USA for some 22+ hours of combat training. We flew the USAF F-15A/Bs against a large number of USAF F-4D/E, F-5/T38, F-106A/B, and the USN F-14A, but all of our USAF F-15A pilot host had only one wish, and that was to take on the USNs new F-14As in mock combat. The USAF F-15A pilots only wanted to fly against the best at the evaluation test, the F-14A, and only the F-14As with their USN pilots defeated the F-15A every time during these test combats. As I recall almost all of the USAF F-15A pilots and USN F-14A pilots at this test were ex-F-4 pilots and war tested by Vietnam. I can also recall that some of these pilots had even killed MIGs in Vietnam combat, and one USN pilot had in fact killed an Egyptian Air Force Mig-21FL during the 1973 War as he was flying IDF/AF F-4E. These were most excellent pilots for sure, but none were more professional then the USN F-14A pilots sent to Nellis for this test in my opinion.... 




This is by another tomcat driver 


QUOTE 
At the time, F-14 vs. F-15 ACM was supposedly verboten, mostly for political reasons. The Japanese Diet was considering an F-15 buy at the time, and the last thing anyone wanted was any bad F-15 publicity. 

Meanwhile, VF-1 positioning out of Fallon, participated in a large Air Force exercise (authorized/unauthorized?) involving among others, eager F-15's. 

Studying the charts, we believed that the F-15 might have advantages in many areas, but the F-14 might have some in other flight regimes. We flew as we had prepared, and surprised even ourselves with our overwhelming success over the F-15's – both in our favored regimes, and surprisingly, even in theirs. 

Unfortunately, there was a covert journalist in the woodwork (Flight International, as I recall). He later published a long article on how the new Navy F-14's had really beaten up on the Air Force F-15's (which we indeed had), and that the F-14 was far superior than the F-15 (which it was not . . . at least not "far" superior . The article caused some serious, international consternation. 

As you correctly indicate, we early F-14A pilots had the advantage of being combat experienced - our squadron had a couple of MiG killers - and many had prior, extensive ACM experience in the F-4. VF-1 may have been a stacked deck, but we had rookies too, and yet we still prevailed. I suspect (no, I'm sure) the Air Force also stacked their deck, and still lost. 

Unfortunately, because of the publicity of our F-14's prevailing over their F-15's, our CO got in international, diplomatic, and political, hot water. But all worked out well in the end. And our early success, despite the early F-14A's real handicaps, remains. 




And one more anecdote. 


QUOTE 
The F-14As have very straightforward handling characteristics which for me as pilot made aircraft maneuverability an extension of my dreams and imagination. With just some 100 hours flying time in the F-14A I could pull up a 25 degree angle of attack at about 75mph and roll 360 degrees. The maximum pitch rate is greater then 60 degrees per second....with this capability, I could pitch my F-14A up at a 75 degree attitude and then snap around in just over one second...to acquire...with my 20mm gun system or Sidewinder. Even today I think any pilot would be hard pressed to take on an F-14A in dogfight and win with anything but F-18 or F-22.... 
"_


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2008)

A pretty good comparison between the F-14 F-16:

_"I am an F-16 fan as well as a Tomcat fan. While I know more about the F-16's flight performance than I do the F-14A, B, or D's, I know enough to say that it's not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. First off, if you were to compare an F-16C Block 50/52 with CFTs and a full A-A weapons load (4xAIM-120 + 2xAIM-9 and full internal + CFT fuel load) with, say, an F-14D carrying 4xAIM-7 and 4xAIM-9 (full internal fuel), neither aircraft would be especially nimble in the phone booth. So let's take both aircraft with only 1/2 internal fuel (including CFTs for the F-16). In this case the F-14D is still going to be heavier, but less draggy due to the semi-recessed AIM-7 stations on the "pancake" belly section. The outboard weapons stations carrying the AIM-9s probably don't add much to the overall airframe drag count either. The T/W ratio is probably somewhat comparable for both aircraft in their respective configurations as well. 

Where will the F-16 have the advantage? Down low in the heart of its envelope where it can pull 9 G above its corner plateau speed range and close to 20 degrees per second within the corner plateau region. The F-16 doesn't have an exact corner velocity (usually); it has an airspeed range in which it can turn at maximum instantaneous turn rate. At medium to high altitudes, the F-14 will have the advantage due to its huge lifting area. The F-16 in question likely won't even be able to sustain 9G at 10,000 ft. let alone 15-20,000. I don't know what the F-14's G rating is in the configuration stated, but I know it can sustain fairly high load factors over a very wide range of speeds and altitudes. We're talking 7.5 G+. It can also maintain very high angles of attack... well in excess of the F-16's 25 deg. limit (which can only be sustained at 1G). 

So let's say these two aircraft somehow manage to engage each other at very close ranges without an opportunity to employ their medium range air-air missiles. They both surprise each other and before either pilot (or pilot and RIO for the F-14D) have a chance to employ missiles, the two aircraft merge. The idea now is to keep from falling back into each other's weapons parameters. The fight has to stay somewhat close. Attempting to flee the fight might result in a successful rear quarter heater or, more likely, slammer/sparrow attack. The options post merge are either a rate fight or a radius fight. F-16 likely wins the rate fight at low altitude. Medium altitude is a tossup. The radius fight favors the F-14 at pretty much all altitudes. If the flight gets slow, the F-16's only hope is to engage the F-14 in a rolling scissors type engagement. The F-14's roll rate/performance is notoriously poor, and the F-16's notoriously deadly. 

The F-16 is, however, a notoriously poor slow speed dogfighter in terms of turn rate and radius. This is due to its blended AoA/G limiter. HAL, as an Eagle driver once described it to me, kicks in for the F-16 making sub-300 knot turn rates and radii less than desirable. Nose pointing authority when you're pegged up against the limiter is... well... very limited. The F-16 pilot needs to force a 2-circle fight with the F-14 adversary. If he lets the fight go 1-circle, the only hope for the F-16 is to not get caught on the second merge and initiate a rolling scissor type fight. If the F-14 crew allow the F-16 to dictate a 2-circle fight, they're probably asking for trouble. 

If things get really dicey and both pilots have to go into their bag of trick maneuvers, the Tomcat driver will have more to choose from. The Viper driver will be hard-pressed to force the Turkey driver to overshoot. On the other hand, the Turkey driver has all sorts of options when it comes to dumping a lot of airspeed while simultaneously rapidly changing course. The only problem for the F-14 is its poor roll authority. Even if the Turkey driver forces an overshoot, capitalizing on it is another story. He may still have to roll his aircraft through 180 or more to re-engage the F-16. Meanwhile the F-16 is making a [hopefully intelligent] maneuver go get back behind the F-14's 3/9 line. 

If the fight is fought primarily in the vertical plane, the F-16 will probably have the advantage on its way up from low altitude to engage the F-14 screaming down from the heavens. You do not want to be messing with an F-16 coming up to meet you at the merge. If it's got some extra smash, that's even more dangerous because it will pull a high yo-yo turn like you'd never believe and be on your sorry behind on the downwind leg before you can even say, "S$!t Goose! I lost him!" (Or something like that... hehehe.) The Turkey driver must strive to stay below the Viper foe until a merge occurs, at which point it can use its powerful rudders and lifting body to maintain an advantageous position above and behind the F-16. A vertical fight that consists mainly of vertical turns (i.e. loops) will go to the F-16, however. Even at low speed, it can power its way up and over the top again and again. The F-14 must use oblique plane trickery in the vertical fight. Fighting in-plane with an F-16 in the vertical is a no no. Vertical rolling scissors... probably a big no no. Probably worse than a conventional rolling scissors. 

Tell me folks... have you ever seen a quick, lean, and mean boxer get knocked out by a slower, seemingly lazy/lack-luster boxer? I know I have. Have you ever seen a bigger, slower point NBA point guard (Chancey Billups comes to mind) put the moves on a taller, faster defender to get to the hole and lay it in so high off the backboard that not even Yao Ming has a chance of swatting it? I definitely have. It's not just about pilot skill... it's about aircraft capabilities and pilot skill. The pilot uses his skill to avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time when his aircraft's capabilities are inferior to his opponent's. Once this pilot's aircraft reaches a point in space and time where it's relatively equal in performance/offensive capabilities to the opposing aircraft, he uses his pilot skill and aircraft's capabilities to maintain this relative performance neutrality. Depending on aircraft mixing it up, two excellent pilots might end up trying to get position on the other without luck until bingo fuel. Then it's like a game of chicken. The outcome might be akin to a soccer (football for all the non-Americans) match coming down to the penalty kicks and one team's goal keeper ends up putting his team ahead by 1 after everyone else on both sides (except the opposing goal keeper) has either made or missed each round of kicks. You have a technical winner of the match, but you have no idea which team is really better. Perhaps you have an idea of which team's goal keeper is more adept at taking penalty shots, but really..."_


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2008)

I see what you mean Soren, nice pics. 

It's almost like the foreward section of the fuselage with the cockpit etc is actuall more of a cenral pod (ie P-38 ) mounted on the wing with the encine nacelles slun under the wing and not blended into a central fuselage like the F-15 or F-16.


And qualitatively it would apear that the F-14 has more lifting area availiable per weight. However as Bill has been pressing, without actual quatitative data for comparison you can't say anything definitively.



And while I don't really like to get into the whole behavior/personality issue, noth of you guys tend to talk past eachother a fair amount and misunderstand or misenterpret what the other was claiming. This is where the "liar" often comes in, the misenterpretation often seems to stem from not being clear when changing concepts you're -particularly Soren- discussing, ie starting a new paragraph, or not clarifying a claim before jumping to a seperate issue. (I think this is what happened with the span loading comment)
Then things escalate etc... Many of us here tend to be stubborn too, so that doen't help. 

And I think the think that gets to Bill is that you tend to state things as fact (or in a statement that apears that way) while it may just be speculation. (this current case in point)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> but he's unwilling to admit his mistakes, which bothers me.



And neither are you!

Besides 90% of the time you start the flaming! It is so pathetic that you are blind to it. You can do no wrong!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> I remember the pilot telling me Do you know how BIG your intakes look when they're behind you?! They told us you couldn't turn with us!"


At what speeds?



Soren said:


> QUOTE(Spartan 120 @ Jan 31 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]195445[/snapback]
> 
> But not exclusively the pilot. The aircraft also makes a difference. Eagle Drivers had a pretty seriouys respect for the Tomcat WVR, at least the ones with the Big Engine, because it held its knots extremely well with its wings spread. The F110 engine also gave it a huge energy reserve to work with.
> 
> ...


If all this was so, why were F-18s sent to William Tell in lieu of the 14, and again I'd like to know the specifics.




Soren said:


> QUOTE
> 
> One of young guys at Langley went to the local paper after the movie Top Gun came out saying how mighty his F-15C was and how he, too, "ate Tomcats for breakfast". OPs O at VF-101 read it and called his counterpart at Langley and said "You know what has to happen..." So 2 Eagles vs 2 Tomcats (A models) with the young boaster with his Ops O and VF-101 OPs O with a student. Both engagements were 2 zip in favor of Tomcat with OPs O gunning is counterpart (coughed a motor in process but kept on closing for guns) and student taking out the proud Eagle driver. The phone debrief included the statement from the Eagle Ops O, "I don't think he'll be talking to the papers anymore".


Pilot skill?



Soren said:


> Another story by MDOG at Tomcat-Sunset.com
> 
> 
> QUOTE
> "As for the B in ACM, the motors NEVER stalled no matter how you jockeyed the throttles and the thing can go "over the top" at 230 kts. We would routinely use asymmetric thrust in a low speed, rolling scissors just to turn the aircraft quicker in the vertical. The only better jet in my opinion in a dogfight was the F-16N. Absolute best you could do against that Viper was a snap gun at the hard deck after a HARD, tight fight down to the deck. You'd better have killed him or he could get the vertical back before you could believe it or not, and then it's game over."


Again, this is low speed and the enviornment is set up for training


Soren said:


> Also interesting is his following remark, something a lot of us overlook when it comes to the F-14's performance:
> 
> "Something else I should mention. Before [that] 1988 Red Flag deployment, no one could remember the USAF F-111s being run down by anything on the deck, but the Bs did it! In fact, I know Reb Edwards (former test pilot and astronaut) who did the low altitude, high-speed tests on the B at Pax River. He had it up to 830 kts at 500 ft and it was still accelerating when he pulled it back. What a machine!"


The F-111 and F-15 would accelerate until they started self destructing - the same with the B-1/ From a very reliable source who flew 111s, F-15s and B-1s 




Soren said:


> A story retold by Tom Cooper, originally by a Iranian Tomcat pilot.
> 
> 
> QUOTE
> ...


Again an opinion





Soren said:


> This is by another tomcat driver
> 
> 
> QUOTE
> ...


Again a lot of opinions - I could go into work and interview 4 or 5 Eagle drivers who would come up with similar stories. I think its going to depend what kind of combat scenario you place the aircraft in to see which is the better of the two. IMO BVR the F-14 has it, once its within the merge at high speed, its going to be the F-15. Jockey speeds and altitudes and the F-14 could be placed in an advantage.


----------



## renrich (Oct 30, 2008)

Would not the reason the F18 was sent to William Tell be because it is supposed to be the supreme dogfighter. Another reason might be the F14 maintenance issues. Incidently, when I had the long conversation with the Tomcat driver at Gunc, he told me that often when a Tomcat came back to the fleet after service at Top Gun, the AC would be sightly "bent" and never performed as well afterwards. Early in this thread I mentioned that I had heard that since the Tomcat carried most of it's exterior stores "conformally" which eliminated much of the drag caused by these stores, it would seem that a Tomcat loaded with missiles, bombs, etc. would have a significant performance advantage over a similarly loaded aggresor AC. That was one of the arguments used in favor of the Strike Tomcat proposal over the F18e-F.


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 30, 2008)

I have never heard of the Strike Tomcat proposal? any info?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2008)

renrich said:


> Another reason might be the F14 maintenance issues.


And i could agree with that


----------



## drgondog (Oct 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> Tell me something I don't know
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Soren - just a brief comment. I was the first one to mention Mustang in the context of UNRELIABLE airspeed indicators. When you posed the '1100 kmh' reference for the me 262 I first asked you if that means you believe Mustang encounter reports that claimed 'I was doing 620 mph in the dive'.

I call those reports 'unreliable' and tried to use that as a reason for you to not accept anecdotal recounts of Mach 1 achievement on face value based on instrument readings.

That was the context. I brought anecdotal references to speeds that did not exist based on flawed transonic instrumentation..

You misinterpreted what I said and called me a liar for bringing the Mustang up as YOUR reference - which I did not do. Go back a couple of pages from that 'delicate statement' and read what I said.

Many times you make an unequivocal statement and get angry when someone questions you - then it goes down hill. Most of our battles result when you step into a subject that you don't fully understand or have all the facts and aerodynamics and Structures and aeroelasticity are included in that field.


I have made mistakes and I have no problem admitting them - and won't have a problem in the future.

I called you out on your 'stream tube' theory as you either copied it or composed it yourself - without understanding what really controls the physics and the theory of lifting lines and tip vortices.

Perhaps if I had been gentler and simple said 

"So, explain what you mean. Are you saying a perfect 1/2 scale F-14 with same AR, 1/2 span, 1/2 wing area, 1/2 weight, and flying in a 1/2 diameter 'stream tube will exhibit more, same or less theoretical lift line, lift distribution, and tip vortex?"

And you would have responded with precision why you think one of those woul have 'greater lift/area' than the other.

I have called you a bonehead in the past - probably when we were in the great suction = draq debate on Lednicer's model - but you are not stupid and I know that. 

If I have ever called you stupid I apologise.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 30, 2008)

Messy1 said:


> I have never heard of the Strike Tomcat proposal? any info?



A "new" model of the Tomcat was originally considered back when the Navy first started thinking about the next generation of strike platforms, which eventually resulted in the F-18E/F. Grumman proposed reopening the F-14 production line; no model number was assigned (it would probably have been the F-14E), but Grumman called it the Attack Super Tomcat 21. It probably would've gotten the AN/APG-71 radar, as well as the GE F-110 engines of the "D".


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 30, 2008)

Any drawings of the Strike Tomcat? Might have to read up on that.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 30, 2008)

Messy1 said:


> Any drawings of the Strike Tomcat? Might have to read up on that.



Found this on a website; no pictures, but lots of information on the proposed F-14E. Also found this on the F-14 Tomcat Association's website.


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 30, 2008)

Thanks Stitch! I must admit, the tomcat is one of my all time favorites!


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 30, 2008)

"The Super Tomcat 21 is a proposed multi-role adaptation of the F-14D Tomcat. It was proposed as a low-cost alternative to the Naval ATF, and drew heavily on the work done on Grumman's "Quickstrike" proposal. 

Like the "Quickstrike", the Super Tomcat 21 was to have a FLIR, and was to be provided with more modes for its APG-71 radar, such as synthetic aperture and Doppler Beam Sharpening for mapping. The new multimode radar would have a two-dimensional, passive, electronically scanned array giving twice the power of AN/APG-71 of the F-14D. All of the FLIRS would be located on either side of the aircraft just below the nose. Four underfuselage hardpoints would have five munitions substations each, while the two wing glove pylons would have two substations. Navigation and targeting pods could be installed. The Super Tomcat 21 differed, however, from the Quickstrike in making an attempt to reduce its radar cross section by a significant amount. In addition, it was to have been powered by improved F110-GE-129 turbofan engines which offered "supercruise" (the ability to achieve sustained supersonic cruising speeds without the need for afterburning) and would even have included thrust vectoring capability. It was anticipated that the 35 percent increase in thrust would allow the aircraft to supercruise at Mach 1.3 with four air-to-air missiles. The Super Tomcat 21 would also have featured enlarged tailplanes with extended trailing edges giving greater area, plus newly-configured wing gloves housing additional internal fuel. It would also have featured increased-lift slotted flaps and extended-chord leading edge wing slats to allow no-wind carrier takeoffs or conventional carrier takeoffs at higher loaded weights. A new more powerful radar suite would be fitted, and the weapons delivery capability would be markedly enhanced by the adoption of helmet-mounted sights. The crew would have a single-piece canopy. 

The combat radius of the Super Tomcat 21 would have been almost twice that of the F-14D. More than twice the expendables would be carried by the Super Tomcat 21, with BOZ chaff dispensers carried on LAU-7 launchers and 135 chaff/flare packets instead of 60 as carried on the F-14D. The revised airframe would have hade 25 percent greater lift and 15 percent lower landing speed. 

The Attack Super Tomcat 21 was based on the Super Tomcat 21 but had thicker outer wing panels that carried more fuel. In addition, the aircraft would have provision for carrying larger external fuel tanks. Refinements to the leading-edge slats and the trailing-edge flaps were to give a 18-mph reduction in the landing approach speed. The aircraft was to have had the Norden radar that had been developed for the abortive General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II. The Attack Super Tomcat 21 has received quite a bit of attention as a potential alternative to the cancelled A-12. 

However, in the present military drawdown mode, both of these Tomcat 21 proposals were never proceeded with. "


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 30, 2008)

Thanks Matt.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 30, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> "The Super Tomcat 21 is a proposed multi-role adaptation of the F-14D Tomcat. It was proposed as a low-cost alternative to the Naval ATF, and drew heavily on the work done on Grumman's "Quickstrike" proposal.
> 
> Like the "Quickstrike", the Super Tomcat 21 was to have a FLIR, and was to be provided with more modes for its APG-71 radar, such as synthetic aperture and Doppler Beam Sharpening for mapping. The new multimode radar would have a two-dimensional, passive, electronically scanned array giving twice the power of AN/APG-71 of the F-14D. All of the FLIRS would be located on either side of the aircraft just below the nose. Four underfuselage hardpoints would have five munitions substations each, while the two wing glove pylons would have two substations. Navigation and targeting pods could be installed. The Super Tomcat 21 differed, however, from the Quickstrike in making an attempt to reduce its radar cross section by a significant amount. In addition, it was to have been powered by improved F110-GE-129 turbofan engines which offered "supercruise" (the ability to achieve sustained supersonic cruising speeds without the need for afterburning) and would even have included thrust vectoring capability. It was anticipated that the 35 percent increase in thrust would allow the aircraft to supercruise at Mach 1.3 with four air-to-air missiles. The Super Tomcat 21 would also have featured enlarged tailplanes with extended trailing edges giving greater area, plus newly-configured wing gloves housing additional internal fuel. It would also have featured increased-lift slotted flaps and extended-chord leading edge wing slats to allow no-wind carrier takeoffs or conventional carrier takeoffs at higher loaded weights. A new more powerful radar suite would be fitted, and the weapons delivery capability would be markedly enhanced by the adoption of helmet-mounted sights. The crew would have a single-piece canopy.
> 
> ...



Matt is there any detail regarding the proposed change in airframe to achieve a reduction in radar cross section - or was the proposal to use radar energy absorbent materials?

Was all the Lift improvement focused on LE and Flap innovations or some mention of other approach to achieve 25% increase in lift.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 30, 2008)

I don't know the answer to that question. As you noticed I enclosed the above in quotes, as those are not my words. My knowledge of the Super Tomcat is nil. Sorry.


----------



## renrich (Oct 30, 2008)

Thanks Matt for your post. I had a publication on the proposal by Grumman detailing much of what you posted but have lost it. The following is from memory about advantages the Strike Tomcat would have had over F18E/F. As great or greater load capacity. Mach 2.4 versus 1.8. Much longer range. Ability to launch from carrier w/o reheat. Zero WOD which Super Hornet does not have, ( Hornet cannot launch with no wind over the deck) This can be crucial when operating in the littoral. The Hornet has some stealth characteristics which the Tomcat does not. I have a book, "Pentagon Paradox," which seems to indicate there were political reasons for picking the F18 E/F program over the Grumman one. The Grumman proposal was all new manufacture with, I believe, all the latest electrical and electronic gear which would have solved some of the Tomcat maintenance factors.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 30, 2008)

Interesting. My timeline recollection was that the Tomcat 21 was much prior to F-18E/F decision. I found an old collection of Aviation Week publications at work about 7 years or so ago (and these publications were dated MUCH early than when I found them), that included extensive discussions of the Tomcat 21. Wish I had absconded them in hindsight. I'm sure they just were thrown away.


----------



## renrich (Oct 30, 2008)

Matt, my memory may be faulty but I believe the Tomcat 21 was a proposal which preceeded the Strike Tomcat. I remember that the NY senator named D'amato or something, a Republican, was fighting to get the Strike Tomcat over the MD proposal and Cheney was the SecDef. After the government took the MD proposal Grumman shut their doors and merged with Northrup and D'amato either retired or was defeated, I think, by the jerk, Schumer.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 30, 2008)

sort of begs the question...was the f-14 defeated in the air, or was it defeated on the ground, in the US senate. Wouldnt be the first time the Navy has suffered its worst defeat at the hands of a pro-air force government...thats basically how the RAN lost its carrier in '83


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2008)

parsifal said:


> sort of begs the question...was the f-14 defeated in the air, or was it defeated on the ground, in the US senate. Wouldnt be the first time the Navy has suffered its worst defeat at the hands of a pro-air force government...thats basically how the RAN lost its carrier in '83


None of the above - If the CNO really wanted the aircraft, he would of gotten it but would have had to given up something. It isn't a matter of taking something away from the Navy and giving it to the Air Force.


----------



## renrich (Oct 31, 2008)

The Navy got the Super Hornet so they really did not lose out except possibly got a less capable aircraft. I still believe that it was a decision based on politics and perhaps to keep MD in business. That is just an opinion and maybe based on a fondness for the F14 and Grumman and not on reality. I hope I am wrong!


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> None of the above - If the CNO really wanted the aircraft, he would of gotten it but would have had to given up something. It isn't a matter of taking something away from the Navy and giving it to the Air Force.




Conceded that the air force did not gain from the Navy's loss, but I am not so sure that it was within the CNO's power to avert the cancellation of the F-14D program (and presumably beyond that the super tomcat). The decision to discontinue the F-14 program was made at the instigation of Cheney wasnt it? And, as I recall werent the Navy brass repeatedly making attempts to reinstate at least some of the program, and were repeatedly overruled. It looks a lot like somebody did not like the Navy, or grumman or both...you have to admit that Cheney does not wash up as the cleanest looking politician of all time...Meanwhile to what extent were the air force programs being cut back? I admit I dont know, but it would not surpise me to learn that their cutbacks were a lot less than the Navy's, or at least proportionally a lot less.

theories only, but at least plausible dont you think?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2008)

renrich said:


> The Navy got the Super Hornet so they really did not lose out except possibly got a less capable aircraft. I still believe that it was a decision based on politics and perhaps to keep MD in business. That is just an opinion and maybe based on a fondness for the F14 and Grumman and not on reality. I hope I am wrong!


I do know this much - it was rumored in the industry that in the 80s and 90s some folks from Grumman pissed off some DoD folks. In the end it may of played into the Northrop take over, but we'll never know the details. Since the mid 80 the Joint Chiefs have a lot more to say on high dollar procurement items than before and I think this was in response to Jimmy Carter killing the B-1 even though the Air Force wanted the aircraft.

Right now the USAF is dumping a lot of programs so it could pay for both the F-22 and F-35. Look how quickly the F-117A was dumped - BTW the entire -117 fleet was just refurbished a few years ago. The cost to keep operating the aircraft gave additional funding to the other pet projects listed.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 31, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I do know this much - it was rumored in the industry that in the 80s and 90s some folks from Grumman pissed off some DoD folks. In the end it may of played into the Northrop take over, but we'll never know the details. Since the mid 80 the Joint Chiefs have a lot more to say on high dollar procurement items than before and I think this was in response to Jimmy Carter killing the B-1 even though the Air Force wanted the aircraft.
> 
> Right now the USAF is dumping a lot of programs so it could pay for both the F-22 and F-35. Look how quickly the F-117A was dumped - BTW the entire -117 fleet was just refurbished a few years ago. The cost to keep operating the aircraft gave additional funding to the other pet projects listed.



The DoD budget has major reviews (as you know) on Systems, Spares/Maintenance, Personnel, Facilities and Future Programs above and Beyond War Fighting/Deployment. Each service puts it's own priotized plan together - usually based on prior year budget but encouraged to show some basis on zero base budget.

Whether we think Rumsfeld sucked or had good ideas, the integration between services in Mission was better IMO during his custody and will have to go even farther over next couple of years.

If we think Carter was Bad wait til we get Barack. DoD will probably get hit immediately and have to cut back ~ 50% if the Blue Dog Dems will line up with Obama. Future Programs? Bet major cuts in F22 and bigger in F-35.

I haven't seen anyone from the Left Wing Community who think NASA is worth doing either.

Clinton was bad - Obama will be unimaginable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The DoD budget has major reviews (as you know) on Systems, Spares/Maintenance, Personnel, Facilities and Future Programs above and Beyond War Fighting/Deployment. Each service puts it's own priotized plan together - usually based on prior year budget but encouraged to show some basis on zero base budget.
> 
> Whether we think Rumsfeld sucked or had good ideas, the integration between services in Mission was better IMO during his custody and will have to go even farther over next couple of years.
> 
> ...



Spot on Bill - this is 1976 all over again - I'm growing my hair long and getting out my polyester leasure suit!


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 31, 2008)

I hope they do not try to pass a bill to re-introduce disco!


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2008)

You wont get any argument out of me that the democrats have the military hardware budget in their sights. What worries me is if they continue to sent US forces into battle even after the cuts. Casualties will skyrocket if they do...at least carter had the sense to avoid major conflict. i think the US cant avoid a warlike time in the near future....and they will be doing it with 2nd and 3rd rate equipment, and equipment that is worn out

Its bad for Australiaq as well. We have contributed about Aus $1bn to the F-35 program and need it no later than 2015. Our F-111s are nearly grounded, and our F-18s are looking very long in the tooth. The defence white paper put out about two years agao expressed the opinion that our air defences will be completely outclassed unless the JSF is ioperational by that time. Our near neighbours are starting to receive Mig-29s and SU-37s, and their operational rates are starting to improve, and here we are, with the best pilots in the region flying some of the oldest airframes


----------



## drgondog (Oct 31, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Spot on Bill - this is 1976 all over again - I'm growing my hair long and getting out my polyester leasure suit!



That was just about the time I got out of the airframe biz for good - too many cyclical layoffs. I never felt particularly threatened but it was always there in back of mind when layoffs were coming.

Obama will not be able to remotely come close to balancing a budget but he can reduce us to 'all or nothing' in context of Triad remain, but Tactical capability will 'Go Away' - down to bare bones


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2008)

parsifal said:


> at least carter had the sense to avoid major conflict.


It was a very different world when he was president and during the only time he attempted to flex military muscle it turned out to be a disaster because of the state of the military while he was president for 3 years.

As far as those currently deployed - I doubt they will see any affects of this in the short term. If equipment maintenance and procurement of new material is cut back then they'll eventually see the effects as happened to Carter's little fiasco in the Iranian desert.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2008)

Messy1 said:


> I hope they do not try to pass a bill to re-introduce disco!




aw why not...I still have the pants you know. I dont have the same shape...but round is a shape too you know


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 31, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As far as those currently deployed - I doubt they will see any affects of this in the short term. If equipment maintenance and procurement of new material is cut back then they'll eventually see the effects as happened to Carter's little fiasco in the Iranian desert.



Not to derail this thread, but the "fiasco in the Iranian desert" basically came down to a lack of Interservice cooperation; the individual units knew what they were doing (in particular Delta), but the Naval aviators weren't used to flying in the desert, especially at night, and they rarely (if ever) flew Special Ops missions with other services. Combine that with the long distances required for the mission, and you're asking for failure. IMO, they should've launched the mission out of eastern Turkey (though mission security might've been compromised) using Army aviators and CH-53's.


----------



## renrich (Oct 31, 2008)

On the F14 subject, the Tomcat driver I had the conversation with at the air show in Gunc had a F14D(or B, whichever one had the GE engines) there, he had flown over from Fallon. This was about the summer of 93. He said the Tomcat could handle the SU27 or Mig 29, easily! (What else would you expect him to say?) Also have a friend who is retired Navy Captain, in the attack community, and also skippered the Lexington( the old carrier used for CarQuals.) This gentleman flew A6s and A4s in VN, etc. and he said he believed the government made a big mistake choosing the FA 18 E/F over the Strike Tomcat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2008)

renrich said:


> he said he believed the government made a big mistake choosing the FA 18 E/F over the Strike Tomcat.


In all fairness there was a lot of benifits in the "Bombcat," but it's easy to make this statement when you're not fixing the thing either.


----------



## renrich (Oct 31, 2008)

FLYBOY, Do you believe that new manufactured F14s with all the latest electronics and new electrical systems could have alleviated most of the maintenance issues?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2008)

renrich said:


> FLYBOY, Do you believe that new manufactured F14s with all the latest electronics and new electrical systems could have alleviated most of the maintenance issues?


No - it was the way the aircraft was designed for hardware maintenance - engine removal, fuel tank access, access to airframe system is what made the plane hard to work on. Most of the complaints I heard voiced about the F-14 were from airframers and powerplant guys.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 31, 2008)

renrich said:


> On the F14 subject, the Tomcat driver I had the conversation with at the air show in Gunc had a F14D(or B, whichever one had the GE engines) there, he had flown over from Fallon.



Actually, both the "B" and the "D" had the F-110's. The difference was (mainly) with the radar systems; the "B" still had the older AWG-9, while the "D" got the newer, digital AN/APG-71.


----------



## Soren (Nov 1, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren - just a brief comment. I was the first one to mention Mustang in the context of UNRELIABLE airspeed indicators. When you posed the '1100 kmh' reference for the me 262 I first asked you if that means you believe Mustang encounter reports that claimed 'I was doing 620 mph in the dive'.
> 
> I call those reports 'unreliable' and tried to use that as a reason for you to not accept anecdotal recounts of Mach 1 achievement on face value based on instrument readings.
> 
> *That was the context.* I brought anecdotal references to speeds that did not exist based on flawed transonic instrumentation..



Funny you say that cause that's not how I see it at all Bill. It may have been in context for you, but it certainly wasn't for me, and your remark that *I* had claimed ANYTHING regarding the P-51's critical mach number was and is still false.



> You misinterpreted what I said and called me a liar for bringing the Mustang up as YOUR reference - which I did not do. Go back a couple of pages from that 'delicate statement' and read what I said.



I read it all Bill.



> Many times you make an unequivocal statement and get angry when someone questions you - then it goes down hill. Most of our battles result when you step into a subject that you don't fully understand or have all the facts and aerodynamics and Structures and aeroelasticity are included in that field.



Lol, I understand areoelasticity and the effects it has, and I always have in the time we've been discussing on this forum Bill. You will however, like in the sound barrier thread, either claim I said something I didn't or just boldly claim I didn't know anything on the subject beforehand your mentioning of it, even when I mentioned it BEFORE you did.

I respect your knowledge Bill, and I've also made it clear that you know more about airplane aerodynamics than I do, but that doesn't change the fact that I still know much of it myself. 



> I called you out on your 'stream tube' theory as you either copied it or composed it yourself - without understanding what really controls the physics and the theory of lifting lines and tip vortices.



You haven't called me out on anything Bill, that again is just you claiming to have discovered a mistake that I really didn't make, because if you read my post I said:
_"The span-loading is *according to some* a good indicator of turn performance as an a/c rides on a cylindrical tube of air "_

Bill the above is more of a question than anything else, one which you should've answered and explained with your knowledge instead of taking it as a claim from my side.

You see that's the reason our debates often go downhill Bill, you will take anything I say wordright and not even try to understand the truth behind the statements. 

In the "lift-loading" debate all you needed to say was: 
*"Hehe Soren, the term lift-loading is actually a definition of something else than you explain, but reading what you say I understand what you mean, but you're using the wrong terminology" *

Now that would've been constructive Bill. But instead you choose to hammer me down claiming that I "babble" and calling me god knows what including "bonehead". 

And on top of that you're master of brewing so many false claims regarding what I have said or claim together in ONE post that I find it such a time consuming task to straighten out each claim one by one that I just don't bother answering back.

Bottom line is I wish to learn as much as everyone else here, but not by being talked down to in the process. And while I don't know as much about airplane aerodynamics as you Bill I still know a lot of the subject facts.

If you respect me then I will respect you Bill, I promise.


----------



## Soren (Nov 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And neither are you!
> 
> Besides 90% of the time you start the flaming! It is so pathetic that you are blind to it. You can do no wrong!



No Adler I am not blind to the fact that I have been acting arrogant, you've made realize when and where and I have apologized to the whole board of moderators for it in a PM to you recently. 

And call me blind but I don't start flaming others 90% of the time, but snide remarks can trigger me. I apologize.

As for doing nothing wrong, I have made mistakes and I always admit to them, and if you'd care to look you'll find that to actually be true. I am merely a human like everyone else here, so I make mistakes, it's inevitable.

That having been said I love this forum and the members of it, I'e learned A LOT in the 4 years I've been here and I really cheerish folks such as you, FLYBOYJ, Matt, Les, KoolKitty, Evan, Erich, Udet, Bill (Believe it or not you nitpicker ), Thorlifter, Njaco, Lucky, Wurger, Plan_D, Micdrow, Kurfurst, Syscom, Parsifal, Delcyros, Charles etc etc etc (it's impossible to remember all so quick) who I believe I have had the most interesting discussions with.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> That having been said I love this forum and the members of it, I'e learned A LOT in the 4 years I've been here and I really cheerish folks such as you, FLYBOYJ, Matt, Les, KoolKitty, Evan, Erich, Udet, Bill (Believe it or not you nitpicker ), Thorlifter, Njaco, Lucky, Wurger, Plan_D, Micdrow, Kurfurst, Syscom, Parsifal, Delcyros, Charles etc etc etc (it's impossible to remember all so quick) who I believe I have had the most interesting discussions with.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bottom line is I wish to learn as much as everyone else here, but not by being talked down to in the process. And while I don't know as much about airplane aerodynamics as you Bill I still know a lot of the subject facts.
> 
> If you respect me then I will respect you Bill, I promise.



That works for me


----------



## Messy1 (Nov 1, 2008)

Now if only the Democrats and Republicans could come to such a mutual agreement, things would be much better in this country!


----------



## mkloby (Nov 1, 2008)

Is everyone going to start hugging now???


----------



## renrich (Nov 1, 2008)

I sure hope not. I am kind of old fashioned as I believe men should only hug women. All this men hugging men makes me wonder.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 1, 2008)

Relax Renrich, it's just a virtual


----------



## parsifal (Nov 1, 2008)

A good start...give him some airspace guys


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

First, exactly how did a F-14, 15, 15 thread get into the WW II section of this forum???

Oh well, since it's here, for my two cents it's the 15. But I agree with Comiso 90.


----------



## ummonk (Dec 15, 2008)

None of the above. Su-27.

Anyways, if I have to choose between those three it is f-15.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2008)

ummonk said:


> None of the above. Su-27.


Nothing an F-15 couldn't handle.....


----------



## fly boy (Dec 15, 2008)

what would happen is the f-16 shoots at the f-14. the f-15 would shoot down the f-16. the f-14 takes down the f-15 and then dies from the f-16 missle


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2008)

fly boy said:


> what would happen is the f-16 shoots at the f-14. the f-15 would shoot down the f-16. the f-14 takes down the f-15 and then dies from the f-16 missle


It would be time to watch Bob the Builder.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm glad _someone _followed that...


----------



## 109ROAMING (Dec 15, 2008)

Thanks for maing me laugh mate


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 15, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It would be time to watch Bob the Builder.



LOL!

Hey, Adler, got another one for you . . .


----------



## parsifal (Dec 16, 2008)

too much Benny Hill I think


----------



## fly boy (Dec 16, 2008)

on that wierd note I'd say my favorite out of all of them is the f-14D


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 16, 2008)

Having said that, I would have to say my favorite is the F-15E "Mud Hen"; you have the best of both worlds: a truly superlative mud mover that can still mix it up with the best air-to-air fighters in the world.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2008)

fly boy said:


> what would happen is the f-16 shoots at the f-14. the f-15 would shoot down the f-16. the f-14 takes down the f-15 and then dies from the f-16 missle


----------



## fly boy (Dec 17, 2008)

anyway


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2008)

fly boy said:


> anyway


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


>



LOL!


----------



## Amsel (Dec 17, 2008)

I voted for the F 14 because I was partial to a/c used by the Department of Navy. After studying the issue and going by the first posters original question I believe the F-15 to be the greatest fighter ever built.


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 11, 2009)

Just to set the record straight, there was some inaccurate info posted about AIM/ACE with the F-14 vs the F-15:

"Durning ACEVAL/AIMVAL at nellis between 1975-78 the USAF tried to validate tactics and types of missiles. Near the end of this engagement a forbidden conflict was arranged(F14 vs F15). The outcome was classified for quite a while, not so much for intel but for political sensitivities. 
It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)"

That is not what happened at all. The first part is true enough, the Tomcat and Eagle drivers were NOT to engage each other at all, and yes it was a politically sensitive time for both programs. At that point, Japan was looking into buying the F-15. What really happened was that Joe "Hoser" Satrapa and Bill "Hill Billy" Hill were in Tomcat #1, while Dan "Turk" Pentecost and "Fearless" Frank Schumacher were in Tomcat #2 and went 2v2 against AIM/ACE F-15's. It was GUNS ONLY, no AIM-54's, no AIM-7's, no AIM-9's. The Tomcats descimated the Eagles, not vice-versa. Hoser and Turk planned to split the fight into two 1v1's, one high, one low with fair lateral separation, and that is what they executed at the onset of the fight. It didn't take long for both F-14's to get on the tails of the F-15's.

Hoser has a shot of his pipper right on the Eagle driver's head, about 250' away, master arm ON, but with no rounds remaining: 






Turk gunned his own Eagle just after Hoser got his and asked about Turk's status, getting 2 contacts about 10k feet above his own plane. Turk sounded "mildly offended" when Hoser asked who was out front...

Although it was supposed to be a secret, some of the top AF brass got wind when the fight got published in Aviation Week and Japan was wondering if the Eagle was the best way to go; history shows us that they went through with that purchase. The full gun-track video still exists, but good luck finding it, IIRC Hoser has the only copy!

Which is better? Whichever one has the better pilot in it (doesn't matter -14, -15 or -16.)


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 11, 2009)

I would vote F-15. It carries the most payload. Sheer rule of probibility, if two pairs of fighters engage each other and one had ten mounts and the other has eleven, it means one pair can fire two more missiles. While it is unlikely that they would need that many, it never hurts. You can't ignore service record either.


----------



## mach driver (Jun 3, 2011)

F-16 for Me.... The F-16 was the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire (RSS/FBW) flight control system, to achieve enhanced maneuver performance. Highly nimble, the F-16 can pull 9-g maneuvers and can reach a maximum speed of over Mach 2.
The Fighting Falcon includes innovations such as a frameless bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control during combat maneuvers, and reclined seat to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot. the F-16 has a better low speed handling characteristic verse the F-15 and F-14's the F-16 also has an unmatched roll rate which the F-15 and F-14 cant handle which makes the F-16 highly nimble. The major advantage that the F-16 has over the F-14's and F-15's the F-16 is virtually impossible to stall.The F-16 has the Better Energy Retention vs the Eagle and Tomcat.

F-16 vs F-14

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZyvY3n9GDY_
F-16 vs F-15

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INb-421E-mo_


----------



## renrich (Oct 5, 2011)

According to Paul Gilchrist, the F14D was superior as a multi purpose fighter. More lethal air to air and air to ground and superior in reliability and maintainability. Tragic that that AC is no longer operational. " A carrier air wing employing F14Ds in both the fighter and strike roles could field five squadrons of the best fighters in the world when needed in the maritime air superiority role. Then that same air wing could field five squadrons of long range, deep strike aircraft." Our Navy today does not have that capability!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 21, 2012)

Ren, that's pretty much the lore I was raised on. Why no F-14 around today? What is the comparative worth of Boeing-McDAC vs Northrop-Grumman? How many people do each employ? Who has the best paid Lobby with factories in more states?  Of course I have to admit to being extremely biased toward any Grumman product, even canoes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 22, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Ren, that's pretty much the lore I was raised on. Why no F-14 around today?


High maintenance costs and they are SOBs to work on. When I was in the reserves we had some Reg Nav Tomcat fixers come into our squadron. They thought they died and gone to heaven working on the P-3, especially the ADs.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2012)

Joe

i believe you, but still the company sales pitch for the tomcat was about how low maintenance it was, especially compared to the F-4s it was replacing. was this just trash talk by the company to sell the aircraft??? what went wrong???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 22, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Joe
> 
> i believe you, but still the company sales pitch for the tomcat was about how low maintenance it was, especially compared to the F-4s it was replacing. was this just trash talk by the company to sell the aircraft??? what went wrong???


Compared to the F-4, the F-14 was easy, so I'm told! 

In the post Vietnam days, the F-14 was considered an easy aircraft to work on considering. Compare the F-14 with the F/A-18 and the F-14 is a royal pain.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

:


FLYBOYJ said:


> High maintenance costs and they are SOBs to work on. When I was in the reserves we had some Reg Nav Tomcat fixers come into our squadron. They thought they died and gone to heaven working on the P-3, especially the ADs.



Never spoke to anyone about the maintenance issues. The -14s came aboard after my tour ended. I was simply besotted by their innovation and the Phoenix system. While performance early-on wasn't all that hot, once they got their proper engines, WoW! As I understand it, the F-14 A+ subsequent F-14D were the first US fighter capable of supercrusing.

I was also an early victim of proselytization by a Grumman propaganda film, _no points for second place_. I am a total sucker for those. All my critical mental faculties are suspended at the sight of swept wings. I won't go into what other mental-physiological changes I experience when I see them . I can still remember being impressed by _Orion: Guardian of the Seas_ seen at Willow Grove when I was starting my retraining as a reserve P-3 type and the wings of that aircraft don't even have a degree of sweep! Truth be told, all it takes is wings.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upEbjlb0Lwo_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avbkPLxyjnE_

My biggest issue with their replacement was the decrease in range perfomance coupled with the loss of the KA-6D tankers, CV aviation capability appeared to have been seriously degraded. I guess with the advent of the F-18E/F that's not so severe as it seemed back when.

The P-3's AD's did always seem a happier lot than those I met aboard ship. What a surprise!


----------



## renrich (Jan 23, 2012)

oldcrow, IMO, which is worth little, the Navy made a big mistake by choosing the Super Hornet over a Strike Tomcat. I do know two former Navy pilots who agree. One, I know personally. A retired Captain who flew A4s and A6s in VN and commanded Lexington. Another ,Paul Gillchrist, retired Rear Admiral. Gillchrist has written a book about the F14, which he flew. I have the book and he calls the Tomcat the most lethal fighter ever. When the Navy chose the Super Hornet, they chose lesser performance, lesser range, no zero WOD capability, less all around capability. His chapter 34 in his book," Tomcat, the F14 Story", entitled "The little fighter than can't" discusses the decision. Gillchrist's opinion is not just based on the Phoenix either. The decision to choose McDonnell over Grumman may have been political and may have been influenced by an overall reluctance in the Fighter Community of the Navy to embrace the air to ground role for the F14 until too late.

Because budget issues may prevent the Navy from being able to equip it's carrier battle groups with the next generation aircraft, we may be stuck with the Super Hornet for a long time with possible dire consequences.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

Strangely, I am sympathetic to both the points you make and those made by FlyboyJ. That's because, until recently, I really didn't appreciate how anyone could make the claim (now generally accepted I believe) that the Hurricane could have won the BoB without the Spitfire  (yikes! where'd that thought train come from?). It just seemed absurd. However, I started thinking about the battle and the role played by logistics. Logistical performance, for want of a better phrase, seems to me to be a critical (if under appreciated) attribute for combat aircraft and based on FJ experience, it appears that keeping 48 high performing F-14s in the air would be significantly more difficult than keeping 48 F-18E/Fs operating. That's how I interpreted his post and if correct, then the navy may have lost one level of capabilty but gained another. Was the Spitfire's performance sufficiently superior to that of the Hurricane so that its replacement would have compromised the battle's outcome? It appears not. Was the F-14's performance so much better than that of the F-18E/F that it would still be as effective in fewer numbers due to the maintenance difficulties? I don't know and I should probably read more on the topic to form a more educated opinion.

I also have to caveat my opinion here with the admission to being VERY partial to any product of the Grumman iron works


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> The P-3's AD's did always seem a happier lot than those I met aboard ship. What a surprise!



No boat - "RON" and you're own room most of the time (AD2 and higher).


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No boat - "RON" and you're own room most of the time (AD2 and higher).



Indeed!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 23, 2012)

renrich said:


> oldcrow, IMO, which is worth little, the Navy made a big mistake by choosing the Super Hornet over a Strike Tomcat. I do know two former Navy pilots who agree. One, I know personally. A retired Captain who flew A4s and A6s in VN and commanded Lexington. Another ,Paul Gillchrist, retired Rear Admiral. Gillchrist has written a book about the F14, which he flew. I have the book and he calls the Tomcat the most lethal fighter ever. When the Navy chose the Super Hornet, they chose lesser performance, lesser range, no zero WOD capability, less all around capability. His chapter 34 in his book," Tomcat, the F14 Story", entitled "The little fighter than can't" discusses the decision. Gillchrist's opinion is not just based on the Phoenix either. The decision to choose McDonnell over Grumman may have been political and may have been influenced by an overall reluctance in the Fighter Community of the Navy to embrace the air to ground role for the F14 until too late.
> 
> Because budget issues may prevent the Navy from being able to equip it's carrier battle groups with the next generation aircraft, we may be stuck with the Super Hornet for a long time with possible dire consequences.



I've actually heard the same thing from several other people about the Strike Tomcat.


----------



## renrich (Jan 23, 2012)

oldcrow. One factor which should be considered about the infamous maintenance problems with the Tomcat. A lot of those were caused by the P&W engine which was intended only to be a interim engine. The GE engines solved a lot of the problems. In addition, the Strike Tomcat was going to be new manufacture which means a lot of the same electric and electronic technology the Super Hornet has and which is presumerably more maintenance free.. A point that Gillchrist makes is that an air group of strike Tomcats would yield three squadrons of Strike Aircraft which could almost instantly be three squadrons of fleet defense fighters.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

renrich said:


> oldcrow. One factor which should be considered about the infamous maintenance problems with the Tomcat. A lot of those were caused by the P&W engine which was intended only to be a interim engine. The GE engines solved a lot of the problems. In addition, the Strike Tomcat was going to be new manufacture which means a lot of the same electric and electronic technology the Super Hornet has and which is presumerably more maintenance free.. A point that Gillchrist makes is that an air group of strike Tomcats would yield three squadrons of Strike Aircraft which could almost instantly be three squadrons of fleet defense fighters.



That's a very compelling argument! I'd love to know whether the maintenance issues really were solved. If so, it does seem to come down in the end to political wrangling but then what doesn't?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2012)

Agree with renrich all the way.


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 28, 2012)

Found a little info on the Super Tomcat? Was this idea of upgrading the Tomcat design even remotely considered?
HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft!


----------



## renrich (Jan 28, 2012)

We blew it. The Tomcat story is a sad comedy of errors. I wish I had the energy to type a bunch of the excerpts from Gillchrist's book.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2012)

renrich said:


> oldcrow. One factor which should be considered about the infamous maintenance problems with the Tomcat.


They weren't infamous. I knew a lot of folks who worked on them and they were SOBs maintenance wise, and I'm not talkin only avionics.


----------



## renrich (Jan 29, 2012)

" Finally and of equal importance, the F14D represents the absolute state of the art in reliability and maintainability improvements. The synergism which this would represent in that all F14D air wing would be equally enormous especially in terms of logistics."

The above from Gillchrist in chapter 31, The F14D Super Tomcat.

All Tomcats were not alike. The first F14D was delivered in 1990. What came to be known as the first F14A was delivered in 1973. The vast majority of Tomcats were F14As and it had the "interim" engine built by P&W which had two fatal flaws, not enough thrust and poor compressor stall margin. It was not until November of 1987, that the first F14Plus with the new GE-F-110 reached the fleet. More than 40 aircraft were lost to crashes, most of which were caused by engine problems. Those engines were responsible for much of the maintenance problems and also the performance restrictions put in place on the Tomcat.

Not many new manufacture F14Ds were built but the program was in place and the airplanes were being built when the program was canceled in favor of the F18 E-F which is substantially less capable, essentially a new design and which was to have escalating developmental costs.

So we canceled a multi mission fighter with known performance capabilities and known costs for the development of a new airplane which we knew in many ways would be less capable and which had an unknown bottom line cost number. That decision may hasten the end of the Super Carrier.


----------



## pinsog (Feb 9, 2012)

I'm only about 5 years late on commenting about this, but, I have a book somewhere around here that stated the Isreali's will not allow their F15 and F16 pilots to mock dogfight. The book states that the F15 pilots look down on F16 pilots as guys that washed out of the F15 program because they weren't good enough, SO, the F16 pilots now have a chip on their shoulder to prove that they and the F16 are better than the F15. The Isreali's wont let them play together because they are afraid they will end up losing both planes and pilots to either midair collisions or flying into the ground, due to the pilots intense rivalry. 

The book finally stated that the Isreali's finally had a secret flyoff between the F15 and F16, and while the F15 was superior BVR, in a close in knife-fight, the F15 stood no chance against an F16.


----------



## Julian Data (Dec 28, 2012)

Wow! this was an interesting read and a lot of bias on both sides. The aero discussion was delight as well. 

This was on old thread but I stumbled upon doing a websearch. Being an engineer that worked on several aircraft simulators, some of the response are laughable at best. So i am not replying here to correct anyone or make any personal attacks. In my experiences, I have worked with the IPs and TPs on these aircrafts. 

With the F14 vs F15, at lower altitudes specifically <15K, there is a slight edge to the F14A. The F15 will always have roll performance and climb performance edge from a subsonic standpoint over the F14A. With the F14B/D, if you look at the Psub charts, you'll see that the fighters are nearly identical in climb performance. The only edge the F15 has over the B/D is the roll performance when the wings are out. 

All US navy drivers fight the radius while the AF go the Rate route. 

... Since dramatic losses in Vietnam and the inception of Top Gun, NO pilot fights in the horizontal plane - all their maneuvers out of plane. Who would be stupid enough to get into a one plane match? You see videos of F14 going out of plane during BFM all the time so whoever said 'horizontal'.. remove that thinking from your head. 

Now in WVR, the F14 drivers would intentional depart the plane in several ways to get the advantage to their opponent. The plane would could 'cartwheel' nose to tail and swap ends quickly, snap the nose from a nose slice to get a shot, asymmetric thrust... etc. That's one advantage of having no FCS however.. the F22 and Super Hornet/hornet are changing the rules on this. 

When Hoser did a WVR match against the two FF Eagles in a F14A what do you think he did? How about the AIMVAL/ACMVAL no no fight against the F14A vs F15A? there were NO comments on that one. There was an Ego driver that did really well against the hoser and made the fight last real long. This Ego driver was trying to get away from an UNDERPOWERED F14A and he finally got the gun shot onto him. 

The F15 evolved a better route while the F14 did not. 

how about when the VF14 with the oldest F14As in the fleet and their new DFCS went up against the Luft Mig29 and beat them? The Mig29 isn't no slouch is it? 

There are exercises when any aircraft in this thread did well because of its training or how the ROE is being added. 

This thread entirely has too much 'my dad is bigger than your dad' mentality to it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2012)

Julian Data said:


> Wow! this was an interesting read and a lot of bias on both sides. The aero discussion was delight as well.
> 
> This was on old thread but I stumbled upon doing a websearch. Being an engineer that worked on several aircraft simulators



Were they REAL simulators or the toy kind that "armchairs" who puke walking up an airliner jetway play while sipping on mountain dew and eating pizza....



Julian Data said:


> When Hoser did a WVR match against the two FF Eagles in a F14A what do you think he did? How about the AIMVAL/ACMVAL no no fight against the F14A vs F15A? there were NO comments on that one.


It was one engagement very early in the F-15s career. What were the skills of the F-15 drivers? An old thread, but I remember reading that and never answered that for those reasons, especially when reading about the scenario when this took place. As the guy who made the post said 

*"Which is better? Whichever one has the better pilot in it." *


----------



## Marcel (Dec 30, 2012)

Old thread, yes and one of those silly questions that were asked back then. What's the point in comparing a fleet-defence fighter, an expensive air supriority fighter and a relatively cheap and light allrounder. They were all good and capable in their own way. 
For my country I think the F16 was best. Rather cheap and advanced for it's day. No point in buying an F15 or F14. The F16 is still very capable and many are not yet at their end of operational life. Still my government wants to buy an overexpensive stealth fighter (F35) costing billions of dollars, while they're not even sure what mission it's supposed to do. All ideas they have could be done with the ol' F16 just as easily.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 31, 2012)

Well, there's procurement ... and there's politics.


----------



## Julian Data (Jan 1, 2013)

actually flyboy, I did simulators for the USAF in which the IP actually used the software to help their students. When we came up to them at the airshow, they said.. "we use the f*cking piss out of it! thanks for all the hard work!"

I have read this old thread and you seem to ignore responses you didn't like. 

it was just not just one engagement. It has happened several times after the AIMEVAL/ACMVAL. This includes the F15C. Read what Parson said when Top Gun was out and someone from Langley mouthed off. You had a F15C vs a F14A with a coughed motor going against TWO F15Cs. That's mid 80s. 

when the F14A+/Bs came with the big motors, they had a big turkey shoot with a lot of planes and before the Block 50/52 F16s came out, the F14A+/B were the fastest things to M1.6 to get out of dodge. 

and.. Yes, it pertains to pilot training as well. but you doubt everything against the F14A or F14 anything.. You're being subjective not objective. And for someone that is in our armed forces, that's bothersome.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2013)

Julian Data said:


> actually flyboy, I did simulators for the USAF in which the IP actually used the software to help their students. When we came up to them at the airshow, they said.. "we use the f*cking piss out of it! thanks for all the hard work!"



And thats great - my comments were directed mainly towards "sim engineers" who basically design "games." Many of them have come on here talking about flying jets and yet they never flown in a real airplane....


Julian Data said:


> I have read this old thread and you seem to ignore responses you didn't like.


Not at all - just the ones that had no relavence or the ones I haven't gotten around to read - remember this thread was dormant for awhile.


Julian Data said:


> it was just not just one engagement. It has happened several times after the AIMEVAL/ACMVAL. This includes the F15C. Read what Parson said when Top Gun was out and someone from Langley mouthed off. You had a F15C vs a F14A with a coughed motor going against TWO F15Cs. That's mid 80s.
> 
> when the F14A+/Bs came with the big motors, they had a big turkey shoot with a lot of planes and before the Block 50/52 F16s came out, the F14A+/B were the fastest things to M1.6 to get out of dodge.
> 
> and.. Yes, it pertains to pilot training as well. *but you doubt everything against the F14A or F14 anything*.. You're being subjective not objective. And for someone that is in our armed forces, that's bothersome.



I seen the F-15 kick the crap out of F-14s during RIMPAC in 1998, I was there - I think that gives me the right to be "subjective." Did you ever serve in the military or were YOU a participant in any military exercise in your lifetime? The only thing I "doubt" about the F-14 are its limitations in a REAL WORLD situation, but it was a great aircraft unless you were the one maintaining it!!!

My fellow sailors admitted their shortcomings during this exercise, so unless you have some type of REAL military experience that places your opinions above those F-14 pilots that participated in the 1998 RIMPAC or the maintainers who I have worked with who turned wrenches on the Tomcat, spare me your rhetoric and BS unless you have "walked the walk" as I find THAT bothersome!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2013)

Julian Data said:


> actually flyboy, I did simulators for the USAF in which the IP actually used the software to help their students. When we came up to them at the airshow, they said.. "we use the f*cking piss out of it! thanks for all the hard work!"
> 
> I have read this old thread and you seem to ignore responses you didn't like.
> 
> ...



Careful not to turn this into a name calling pissing match.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 1, 2013)

especially with a mod...welcome julian, but you are just a little aggressive for comfort, especially with just two posts mate. Youve got some very interesting observations and they do seem to make sense, but my advice, dont need to be as aggro about the issues....


Just trying to help ya


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2013)

Aldler and Parsifal - thanks for the input, hopefully our new found friend will heed the advice...



Julian Data said:


> actually flyboy, I did simulators for the USAF in which the IP actually used the software to help their students. When we came up to them at the airshow, they said.. "we use the f*cking piss out of it! thanks for all the hard work!"



After re-reading this thread this morning and making my way into work, a few questions popped into my head. Just so you know I work at the USAFA, and my employer is under the 19AF and we work with and for AETC. I work on the Academy soaring program, IFS and jump (skydiving) program with many IPs who flew everything from -15s to C-17s, so needless to say I know a little bit about USAF flight training. This "IP" that used your software - was it in a SIM or in his own personal PC? Do you know that ANY "OFFICAL" training aid has to be approved by AETC and run through an engineering approval process at one of the AF contracting and engineering centers (I deal with folks out of Tinker AFB, OK)? Training aids, be they software or hardware are strictly controlled and are made part of an approved curriculum. If this was recent, this IP possibly violated about a dozen AFIs involving software and their use in government computers or in computer training aids - unless YOU are a government contractor and went through the approval process to have your software used on government computers and training aids. Tinker and/or Wright Patterson would more than likely be the places where I believe this would happen, so now I'm curious - where was this "IP" from? Was he with AETC? Did he use your software on government training computers or full-motion sims? How long ago was this? I'm curious!!!!!


----------



## Njaco (Jan 2, 2013)

uh oh........


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2013)

cartwheel nose to tail...


----------



## Julian Data (May 13, 2014)

Flyboy, 

sorry for the late response. This whole thread is based on "paper data", what the planes did for on this and that exercise without listing the complete ROE specifics... comments from BIAS IP/TPS or inter rivalry banter.. This thread is mainly .. "my father is bigger than yours!" Come on guys, if you want to talk subjective then keep it clean. I go down this road with you guys but it solves NOTHING. ...

A F14A beating on F15A on a guns match during ACM/EVAL... During an exchange tour, an UK pilot commanded a 4 v 4 vs Tyndall F15s.. the F14 came out on top.. With the DFCS introduction, the VF14 in the lowly F14A bested the Lufftwaffe Mig 29 in a 1 v 1 match.. We can go all day on this.. one F14A beats 2 F15C from Langley in a gun match.. Its pointless... 

we can talk about how the harrier beat the F15 in a WVR match.. what's it solve? NOTHING.. 

You can plot or predict each aircraft's performance and see where they're strengths are. the F14A-D were strong under FL150. As for hamfisting a plane with out a limiter, you can over G any plane if you have reached the proper speed and weight. Take the G limiter off the F16/18.. watch what happens.. Dale Snodgrass even managed to pull 11G when avoiding a SAM during DS1. Give me a break. 

The F14A-D does not have FBW and you can depart the aircraft into the direction you want it to go.. provided if you had the knowledge and the balls to do. This is an area that isn't listed in any flight manual. While FBW aircraft help the pilot keep control the aircraft. 

Paper fighting isn't real life. The fact remains, the F14 can hold its own in the WVR arena. Any skilled pilot will always use the strengths of their aircraft. When the F110 came, the F14B/D were the fastest aircraft what would reach M1.6 quick during exercises so .. this ended when the F16 block 50/52 came.. 


I suggest you guys read the book by Hoser Sapatra on the F-14.. Its an interesting read and he tells you about using airshow/post stall maneuvering in the F14s.. even with one engine pulling snapping the nose around.


----------



## Donivanp (May 13, 2014)

Even though I am retired USAF I would hands down take a Tomcat. Why get into a knive fight when I can throw a javelin or a spear before I need to pull a sword oh but I do also have a knife. With a package that (by EOL) included the AIM-54, AIM-7, AIM-120, and AIM9 oh and wait, not done yet, M61 20 mm cannon. And give it the D engines that cat can do some serious furballing. It could tangle with the best and spit fur out all the day long.


----------



## Totalize (May 13, 2014)

I am no fighter pilot past or present nor even an a/c mechanic which I think some are here but just a guy with an interest in learning more about how its done in the real world today. I dont think we have even heard from an actual fighter pilot on the recent posts but I just like the F14. It's armament capability and forward/swept wing design just looks so bad ass. Having some top line engines to give it a boost in a vertical fight I think is a great benefit or just to get the hell out of dodge if the advantage is not in your favour. For sure there is no shame in running from a fight if one doesn't have the advantage. And no my opinions are not scientific nor do I speak from actual experience. I do however think that it really depends on the guy in the cockpit that ultimately makes the difference on who comes out on top in an egagement. At the end of the day I would take all 3 with a smattering of F/A-18 on the side for sure. Fighter pilots are so loaded with confidence in their own abilities that I don't think any of them would refuse either of these 4 aircraft in a fight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2014)

Julian Data said:


> Flyboy,
> 
> sorry for the late response. This whole thread is based on "paper data", what the planes did for on this and that exercise without listing the complete ROE specifics... comments from BIAS IP/TPS or inter rivalry banter.. This thread is mainly .. "my father is bigger than yours!" Come on guys, if you want to talk subjective then keep it clean. I go down this road with you guys but it solves NOTHING. ...
> 
> ...


Boy I had to revive some dead brain cells to remember this one.

All good but I'm still interested in that "training software."


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2014)

Donivanp said:


> Even though I am retired USAF I would hands down take a Tomcat. Why get into a knive fight when I can throw a javelin or a spear before I need to pull a sword oh but I do also have a knife. With a package that (by EOL) included the AIM-54, AIM-7, AIM-120, and AIM9 oh and wait, not done yet, M61 20 mm cannon. And give it the D engines that cat can do some serious furballing. It could tangle with the best and spit fur out all the day long.



I was under the impression that the F-14 did not have AIM-120 compatability, and that would have taken some additional development to get that. But the USN didn't bother because they were retiring the F-14.


----------



## swampyankee (May 25, 2014)

Soren said:


> Well in war different type a/c meet each other all the time, regardless if their flown properly or not
> 
> Let me create a scenario:
> 
> ...



The F-14s, after downing the bombers leave town. The fighters aren't a threat. Or the F-15s, after losing the bombers, leave town, as their mission is blown. 

Since the Sparrow has a considerable range advantage over the Sidewinder, and the Tomcats would probably have fired all their Phoenix missiles, the F-15s would probably engage long before the F-14s could shoot back, and probably shoot at least one down. If they're stupid enough to get within dog fighting range or unlucky enough to need to, they're now in the Sidewinder's envelope, which would probably cause them to at least one of their number, and the other would then leave town.

If it gets to gun range (very unlikely), it's all luck. Everything I've read is that the F-14 and the F-15 were both very nearly equal in their ability to dog fight, with most of what I've heard (Av Week and long-lost contacts in the aviation industry) stating that the F-14 was slightly superior.


----------

