lunaticfringe

And no need for apologies. It's the internet- no facial expressions or tone, so things always read worse than they are.

The detonation cord used to ignite the explosive bolts separating the ascent stage from the decent state of the LM was used for the same purpose on the F-14's canopy. Only difference was the length. Pretty interesting, when you think about the fact that the LM was the only component not to fail during the program (and went far beyond its design specification during Apollo 13). Too bad it didn't work for Goose. ;)

Messages 58-67 in this thread pretty much cover your first question. With respects to the G limitation, the F-14's original sweep program was for CL max. The Navy didn't like the amount of flexing moment they witnessed in the wing, and had Grumman reprogram the system for Ps. This gets into the G limitation for the reason that the test flight aircrews were told to treat it like a 13G airframe and fly it accordingly. Military aircraft are generally designed for stresses up to 1.5 times operational G limit (although there are exceptions: see F-16, having a substantially lower margin). If 13G was the point Grumman was telling their pilots how to treat it- and you can be certain that the flight test aircraft were abused to make sure the state of the art construction/fabrication techniques used in the type, you're realistically looking at a design target of 8.5-9G. As others have said elsewhere, it was the reality of the 70's economy that made the Navy begin worrying about long term purchases; some of this involved the nature of the flyaway price lockdown that Grumman offered to the Navy, which blew up in their face with the energy crisis. Had clearance not been given for the sale of the Tomcat to Iran, if memory serves, Grumman would have been forced to close its doors in 1977 because the prices were not permitted to change over the first few Blocks. When you're up against that sort of situation, you're going to baby your favorite toys, because you may never get any more of them, and you're a long way away from being able to get a suitable replacement. The flipside of this what was done to the machine in service. Hoser put 10+G on one avoiding Hawk Monroe, and did even worse at AIM/ACE. Muczynski put 10.2 on Fast Eagle 107, and there wasn't a single issue during the required inspection. A good pal of mine, former RIO, had his pilot put 9.5 on in a break turn during a FFARP setup, and nothing was found in the way of stress or damage- this was 1989 at this point, and was in an A from what would have been the 82/83 timeframe (if memory serves), and they'd all been pushed pretty good by this point during multiple excursions over the op limit. Some of the electronics hated the stress that would be put on them, which caused many of the changes over the years in replacement versions of the boxes, but the machine itself was a beast. I know a lot of ex-crews, and I am hard pressed to find any of them who have recollection of overstress doing anything substantial. Fun fact, while we're at it (that RIO pal with the 9G introduction of his face to his kneecap would be mad if I didn't tell somebody): part of the Tomcat went to the Moon. Take a guess which.

It takes a bit for the jpgs to load. If it doesn't work, holler. And note: those pages were provided as a challenge to someone (for them to present their own data on the MiG-23)- the B/D pages are with "Maneuvering Devices NOT Operating", ergo, no auto flaps/slats, which is to say a margin less than it'll really do. Basically trying to show that you could gimp an F-14 and still not get a Flogger to take it.

*Every* Hornet is the wrong hornet. (And that, folks, is how you double entendre.)

What? http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2340360&postcount=98 Both are available. The A's been available for a good fifteen years online. The B/D had a high price of admission, being the far fewer number copies of that book generated over the years. As it currently stands, you're talking to the only person distributing the latter short of finding your own hardcopy.

*golf clap* Coming soon to DCS World...

Yeah, and then you started answering me. That generally requires one having been paying attention to what was being said. For that rate around 360 degrees you're desperate for? Yes. See, this is what's funny: you want it one way (minimum radius) or the other (< 16 seconds). If you're going to get nuts over 200' of radius above CL Max when the machine tears your target number up- I hate to tell you: when you have that much turning ability to spare, 200' of radius ain't saving you.

Not ironic at all, that. When you start looking at the CL Max generated by the F-14 at 20 degrees of sweep and add the energetic nature of that wing (solid wing/thrust loading)... Realizing that the F-14 was engineered for *substantially* more G than it was permitted operationally, even just noting where CL Max would cross 7.5G is an object lesson on the insanity of it being an "interceptor". And to think they were beating the snot out of "better" aircraft with both hands tied behind their backs...

I think the problem is that a bunch of us have been saying the same thing regarding the data, while you regard this topic as a PM between you and GG rather than a discussion on a public forum. Looking at what it will do at 15k (20+ degrees per second passing through corner) I wouldn't be surprised at all if it got real close at either 10k, 5k, or SL and the right configuration.

Because it's the only one AVAILABLE IN THE F-15C'S -1. We've been talking about this fact for over two pages already- keep up.

BASED ON THE CHART HE PROVIDED FOR *SUSTAINED RATE TURNS*. Cripes a'mighty.

You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about to make such a patently false statement, and this is explicitly the reason why I've been stating that USAF manuals are deficient in providing the Ps compared to the doghouse. We're not discussing *sustained turns*: we're discussing a turn in which induced drag will pull the aircraft through CV- right at the top of the plot. Fine, start at Mach .8/3000' radius. By the time you're complete at Mach .5 (or thereabouts), your actual radius will be below 2500'. And that's at 15k; bring it down to SL, and you're talking sub-2000' radii with a turn rate in excess of 20+ dps. Nah, F-15 can't do that.

Funny how that Fulcrum's wing is all loaded up and pulling with nowhere to go but through the pipper... ;)

The funny thing about a maximum rate turn over the corner of the doghouse: It becomes a minimum radius turn *real* fast based on the law of averages.

First mistake: expecting someone to *work*. Is the MiG-29 a good dogfighter? I'm not sure. An acquaintence of mine was over in Germany and spent a number of days taking pictures of it in all sorts of compromising positions...

We'll always have the vertical.

And? On the -1 page GG provided, at SL the F-15C with 41000 lbs will sustain an 8.8G turn at 0.8M, generating a turn rate of 18.5 degrees per second. 360/18.5 = 19.45... well what do you know?? That is four and a half seconds faster than the test at 385 knots, and closer to the target of 15 seconds than it it is from said value (24 seconds). Again, configuration is everything. Lower that weight, the degrees per second rate goes up, as the Mach goes *down*. Remove stores, rate goes up as the energy sustained goes up. Simply throwing a value out there is meaningless. And frankly, this is the sort of problem that having the full chart (with the CL max intersection to maximum G, and the doghouse's corner) would illustrate the solution for: a maximum rate turn is started *above* corner, with the express intention of passing through the longest band of degrees per second rate possible.

The thing that kills me is that the only CL/Ps chart I've ever found on the F-15 is in that Gray Matter series (the RTU manual- I think I pawned it off on you a while back, GG) for 15k. Even at that altitude, the F-14 maintains the CL curve advantage through 0.65 of around 1/2 G, descending at 0.5M. The frustration stems from exactly what I said- ACM isn't fought at sustained rates; it's the trades. If you're fighting in another guy's wheelhouse, you win by making the correct trades of Ps for position. You have to see those trades to learn them, and there's never enough DACT to go around. Get a proper chart, and you can not only see how far you can take it for rate, you can get a really good idea how much you'll pay, and how long you've got to unload (or how much altitude you've got to sacrifice) to get it back.

Why calculate? PM.

I give you whole manuals, and get a page in return. Some pal. :P ;) Possibly, or you may be reading the wrong chart: Maneuvering Devices Not Operating, rather than Maneuvering Devices on Auto. 0.6M @ 10k in the F-14A is just a shade under 13.4 degrees. It's actually 13.5 for the Tomcat at .65M @ 5.0G, but now we're in sweating over hair territory. And speaking of reading charts easily- HEY AIR FORCE: HOW'S ABOUT SOME ACTUAL Ps CURVES, EH? COMBAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AT PURELY SUSTAINED RATES. :D This is where I'm really getting the impression you're looking at the wrong series. I'll disregard the rest (M0.4), but as far as the two modes (non-operational and operational): 0.6M: N/O: 14dps @ 5.0G 0.6M: Op: 14.5dps @ ~5.4G F-15: 0.6M: 14.5dps @ 5.0G (interpolated) The F-14A can grab another degree here by slowing down a tad and standing at 0.55M as shown on the chart. 1 degree? Sure. But we're arguing this all out for the sake of arguing, so :P

Tomcats did Flag, and played Red Air on occasion for the FWS. Subsequently, I hope that the time being spent on a new theatre *isn't* Fallon, Miramar/Yuma, Oceana, or Key West. A place where things are actually supposed to be shot at and explode, rather than simply get ACMI tape would be nice.

ICAO and US Standard Day are both 15C/288.15K, 1013.25 hPA, same lapse rate. *shrug* Toss me your F-15 charts, yo.

Below 15k and Mach .75, the Tomcat holds an average of 1G sustained on the F-15 in both the A and B/D configurations. That's anywhere from 15-30% more available G. That is what is generally referred to as "huge", although YMMV. ICAO and US Standard Days are in essence the same. The 1966 version of the US standard is the same as the 1962 and 1976 up to 32km. Data higher changed due to satellite data in the 66 issuance, and then got substantially better in 1976 based on even more. Re: configuration: The 53,873 F-14A, with a 40,104 dry weight, is essentially 2840lbs of ordnance (4x AIM-9M @ ~200lbs and 4x AIM-7M @ 510lbs ea), and just under 11000lbs of gas, or 67.9%. Is the chart for the F-15 anywhere close to 40,575lbs (same ordnance, since she could hang it, and 9135lbs of gas, or 67.9%)? Generally speaking, I see data on the F-15A/C at around half gas for combat weight, putting it around 2400lbs less (38,175), sometimes as low as 35,000lbs.

Meanwhile, had the same comparable combination by volume of 3rd and 4th generation aircraft gone to war with NATO in Europe, we'd be hearing the same excuses. Warfare is a "run what you brung" affair. It was a battle of *Iraq's* own making. At any time, the Baghdad regime could have openly contested the buildup by coalition forces, or capitulated from its holdings in Kuwait. Instead, Saddam Hussein made a choice; whether that choice was based on disbelief, arrogance, or a steady stream of propaganda from his advisors (both from foreign suppliers and domestic), the choice was calculated. Thus, squabbling over what constitutes a "fair" fight is useless.