Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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 beHey 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.
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 aircraftThat 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.
BINGO!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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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
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.
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).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.
And the F-15 has the same gun, again your point?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 it was designed to do so from the outset so it could kill Soviet Bombers.But which a/c can fire the Phoenix missile ? The F-14.
Again it depends on the scenerio.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.
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).
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.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.
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.
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.
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 ?
My direct question was to see if you were really serious about a.) the claim relative to turn manueverability based on 'the 'stream tube' and associated efficiencies implied.
You correctly identified your lack of knowledge about your references and the associated context.
The answer is that given the much higher AR of the F-14's wing there is no doubt it is more efficient.
At low speeds under 400 kts I might concede the thesis but I would like to see the data. At transonic and above the F-15 and F-16 AR don't change as the F-14 moves back to full sweepback, low AR, lower T/W.
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.
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.
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"!
Maybe the F-16 would have a chance with Doug Masters in the cockpit.
Because Soren says so, I don't know....