Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Once inside the merge, what did he say about the final outcome?
Agree on the -16. When you mention Tiger, are you talking about the F-5?
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.
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.B&Z is the magic word FLYBOYJ. The F-15s took the fight into the vertical and beat the F-14s.
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
"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."
Then more babble regarding cylindrical stream tubes in context of drag
??????
Please help me understand your defintion of 'efficiency'.. and your source for 'Span Loading is a good indicator of turn performance" then the extract on stream tubes and relevant change of momentum due to difeerent lift forces...
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.
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.
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.