lunaticfringe

No. A-4 vs F-14 showdown.

In the first video, if you've ever read "Hawk" Smith's bio Roger Ball, the instructor in the orange flight suit (Mike) is "Mauler"- the same guy he beat with the soft wing A-4 as TOPGUN CO, having ordered the lock bolts removed, giving the Mongeese back everything Douglas engineered into them, much to Mauler's chagrin.

Defended? There's nothing here to be defended, including an incorrect chart.

I'm not disputing that; however, that's why I'm stating- what matters is the meat of the envelope, not the bleeding edge of flight capacity. If those charts were 100% correct low, that end of the chart would be almost illegible. Instead, it's fudged, with the understanding nobody is paying attention. No great shakes.

Completely logical. Completely reasonable. Completely negates the raison d'être of the chart. What the chart says: "put X G and Y bank angle into aircraft at A Mach and get Z turn rate." What the chart doesn't say: "put X G (with a bit of special sauce) and Y bank angle (with the appreciable mustard) into aircraft at A Mach and get Z turn rate." Given its gradation, it actually *has* the capability to model exactly what you said. It doesn't. It simply says at 165 kts at SL, put a 60 degree bank angle on the airplane and generate 13DPS. That's mathematically wrong. Sorry. It's especially wrong (and therefore incorrect to claim so) when the chart could be modified to present exactly what you say.

From the data on that specific page, there is something wrong. I'm just going to run this off the SL line, 2.0G of G, and and a 60 degree bank angle: 2.0G/60 degrees of bank becomes available at essentially 0.25 Mach on the SL line. With Mach at SL being 661.5 knots: 661.5kts * 0.25 = 165.375 kts We can proof this against reality through figuring for stall. When we want to find how much speed a given G requires, it's sqrt(G) * stall In this case, we know the speed at which we can first generate 2.0G- 165.375 kts. So we perform the equation in reverse: 165.375 = stall*sqrt(2) sqrt(2) = 1.414 165.375/1.414 = 116.937 116.937 = F-15 Stall @ SL. Considering that normal takeoff procedure has the pilot rolling at 120 knots, we're not exactly out of the ballpark on our calculations. Now, here comes the problem: At 0.25 Mach and SL, the F-15's chart as above claims a *sustained* turn rate of approximately 13 degrees. And that is sustained = no altitude loss to make up for a deficiency in Ps. This constitutes trouble thusly: Rate of Turn = [1091 x TAN(BA)]/KTAS, where TAN = tangent, BA is bank angle, and we're talking knots true. Now, why is this a problem? 1. The F-15 can't use a higher bank angle than 60, lest the nose fall and negate it being a "sustained" rate turn as presented. In fact, it's stating this clearly on the first half of the chart- 2.0G = 60 degrees of available BA. And that is a problem, because... 2. The math: Rate of Turn = [1091*TAN(60, which is 1.732)]/165.375 For those following along at home, that's 11.426 degrees per second. Now, do I think that anybody is going to get a hard on over rate numbers at the absolute bleeding edge of sustained rate and Mach? Not really, because at 0.25 Mach, you're in pebbles, boulders, and all sorts of garbage on that stick if you try standing around for a maximum sustained rate turn. That is to say, you're not going to go there, and you're not going to fight there. But is the chart perfect along both axis at all points? Doubtful. These things are estimated, and not every single point is hit. They don't need to be to be operationally useful. Give a pilot everything above 0.35 solid, and with time in the cockpit, he'll be fine with everything underneath by feel, rather than a chart.

Playing against anything fourth gen, the MiG-21 should be coordinating in one of two roles: 1. Stooge 2. Killer A couple of MiG-21s at middle altitudes pressing in an area, supported by Flankers on the deck, radars off, (or -29s if close to home) can draw Eagles into a dangerous position, to be finished by the Sukhois. The reverse of this is allowing the Flankers/Fulcrums to draw (because of their being the superior opponent), while the Fishbeds roll in on the deck, radar off, directed by GCI or team comms. This lets the small visibility of the MiG-21 come into play, since their IR shots should be undetected until the point of impact. The point is that the MiG-21 should never get tied down to single engagement, and function in the airspace only on its terms.

Further. Procedures existed to mitigate the decreased loiters.

This is where you're dealing with an aircraft that can internally stow 16,000lbs of gas, hang another 3600, and top off on the outbound to the CAP, you're operating with a good 14K worth of gas just in CAP time, with a gross total weight of 64K carrying six Phoenix, two Sidewinder. When you run that through the drag and cruise indexes... ...you can get to four hours on less than 12K in a 25K altitude CAP without a top off. Seven thousand pounds with 150 miles both ways and a fight? Totally doable with a reasonable margin. Sure, they might have to send up a tanker if you bolter (although SOP is going to have one available anyways), but if you're on the bleeding edge of a full-on shooting war, its what you do.

No, the other one. About the jet that's not the F-14.

Section III-I, pages 651 and following. You're not going to get a later generation's material for at least another five years or so on the Navy side: I've already tried. As to the perception for how the USAF is going to run their CAPs, let's just say history hasn't shown that to be the case. And with regards to what the F-14A is going to do, in dealing with both pilots and maintainers, the 414s were appreciably more resilient to throttle change. Not perfect, but you were able to negotiate transitions if smooth- the more time you took handling the throttle, the better.

Trees-shmeez. Drill Baby, Drill.

Chuckles, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash.

They could. It was simply the economic dynamics and such at the time. Had the Navy's original plans to run off a few blocks of TF30 'cats, then replaced the motor with a F100/F110/etc analogue, and essentially get double the total number of airframes than what they eventually purchased, the limitations would not have held, and the CL Max programming would have likely stayed put. Instead, the energy crisis happened, stressing Grumman's bottom line based on the prior negotiations with the DoD and Congress, and hampered the eventual plan.

They used to be more unswept until the CADC was reprogrammed after the first dozen or so (based on Navy not liking the amount of flex).

The first fighter aircraft with what we classify as a HUD was the A-7. As to differences, the technology change within those few years between their respective first flights and specification lockdowns were such that the Eagle had different hardware available to go into production with. This is one of those areas that many people who comment on programs such as the F-35 don't follow; example- the recent complaints over the imaging system. The specification close on that hardware took place almost a decade ago. The engineers have been working on a space, weight, and data BUS requirement tied to that for that time. While the overhead is there to swap in different equipment, you're dealing with items that have been in the pipeline for years. You can't call up the line and have them swap in what you think may be a suitable replacement overnight, nor can you get the numbers required to meet the delivery schedule. This is why the block/tranche technique is so favored- you can time updates on a schedule that meets long leads, engineer for maintenance compatibility and replacement, and get your required airframes all at the same time. And note- the F-14 kept the same HUD over, what, a dozen or more block upgrades prior to the D coming online and the B upgrades - if it was functionally deficient at the operational level, they'd have swapped it out long prior. The system didn't get switched until the overhead required it, not because it didn't look "pretty".

Bingo. That's why you'll find green windscreens, because that plexi is designed to do the collimation work.

It's better for what it is, although it has its lapses, too (see: F/A-18 cockpit swaps for moments he's flying a Tomcat...).

If you had all those reports, you wouldn't have made the ludicrous claim about Combat Tree. No, they're not actually "just as good", given the aforementioned fact: VPAF records do not maintain *airframe* losses- only *pilot* losses. Which, when you think about it, makes it a fairly ballsy claim to state that they are "just as good", when USAF/USN outline everything: what they (think) they shot down, and every airframe they lost- whether the crew was killed or rescued. Seriously- Boniface covered this seven years after Toperczer, with the latter having aided the former in the research. You want to complain about age of material- get with the program and acknowledge what kind of inane joke that creates for "matching" claims. USAF: We have gun gamera footage showing this aircraft being blown out of the sky on this date. VPAF: Didn't lose a pilot- didn't happen! USAF: You do realize he could have ejected, right? VPAF: We have absolutely no record of such, and our records of airframes received from USSR/China are classified- didn't happen! That's some spectacular record keeping technique, eh? Quite immaterial to the discussion you wanted to start with. You wanted to state the case as to USAF employment on a regular basis using a specific system in a particular fashion that cannot be verified with the materials explicitly covering applied techniques at the time. Nothing has changed in the definition of what Combat Tree was over the intervening 40 years. Nor, has the details on how it was used. And given the admitted documentation holes on the VPAF side, you really don't have a case to question as to what is inaccurate or not. And I had to save the best for last: I've been following, and actively involved, in this thread for the last two-plus weeks. Meanwhile, you've just signed on in the last twenty-four hours- and you want to say *I'm* the troll who just turned up? Project much?

Instantaneous Turn Rate/Sustained Turn Rate

Aerial Attack Study.

What's that you say- you don't like that it was concurrent and discussing the activities and tactics utilized in medias res? Hell, considering the fact that the last US kill was January of '73, that's a bit of a hollow complaint. But here. It was a bit asinine, and that's a nice attempt at backing away from it, but no dice.

*My* assumptions? That's a heady call, considering that you'd expect to upset people over data they already have access to- driven by the assumption that they don't have said data.

I know exactly what Combat Tree is, champ- I don't require others to do my homework for me. Read the covers. I'll take that evaluation data over Toperczer's (and your opinion) every day of the week. ;)

Yeah, I'm doubting you have anything of substance to present compared to the contents of my bookshelf. It's really hard to get upset over aerodynamic calculations and flight test data. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2340360&postcount=98