captain_dalan

Roughly speaking, purely academically speaking, how much of an effort it is? And does it involve full engine removal?

I've done some pretty wild 'bat turns' myself with proper technique. In actual combat configuration too. I'll look up the tackview files if you like

No, just no...... you lost me there. Look at the chart carefully, it's a sea level chart, for wings at 16 degrees forward. The manual doesn't specify how or why, but fighting at this setting is strongly discouraged. It would be like fighting in the F-14 with the full flaps down. Possibly even worse. Even so, say you did decide to risk structural failure of the wing roots or the pivot points and not just flaps like you would in the F-14, the following should be taken into account: -F-14A in 4x4 MiG-23 in 2x4 air to air loads, all air speeds are indicated 1. The 23 chart is for sea level, the F-14 chart is for 5000ft. There's a roughly 16% difference in performance (lift to drag ration to be precise) based just on air density; 2.a. The MiG caps at a max lift at just bellow 18 deg/s at 330 knots. That's at lift limit. At this point it bleeds 200ft/s. 2.b. At 5000ft, the F-14 caps (max lift) at 22.5 deg/s at 330 knots at which point it bleeds more then 800ft/s. At 18deg/s it looks to be bleeding a bit more then 300ft/s. Looks like the MiG has a chance, right? 2.c. F-14A adjusted for altitude, caps at over 26deg/s. The -200ft/s excess power adjusted is at 19.7deg/s. At 330 knots, while the mig is flying it's wings off grasping for every last knot of airspeed it can get before stalling (which is not going to happen as it's supposed to be mechanically limited in how much AoA it can pull), the F-14 is matching it or out-turning it, and comes up with more energy after that. This is without tapping into the extra lift at the cost of more energy, that is opting to tighten the turn to get into or spoil a firing solution. 3.a. The MiG ASL sustains 16.6 deg/s at 350 knots 3.b. The F-14A at 5000ft sustains 15.5 deg/s at 330-340 knots. It looks like the MiG is winning, right? 3.c. The F-14A ASL, sustains 18 (17.9899)deg/s at 330-340 knots. It sustains at the MiG's lift limit. 4. The only advantage the MiG has is in climb-unloaded acceleration. The +200ft/s and +400ft/s show clear superiority here. Are you gonna be able to exploit it? Are willing to risk accelerating with the wings full forward and exceed allowed speed for that setting? Can you fly with one hand switching from throttle to wing sweep and managing a dogfight out of that cockpit in real time? How much force is required to move the handle? How fast you can react and change your wingsweep as the airspeed changes? As the altitude changes? As you are pulling 6-8g for your life? 5. This was all at the absolute 'best' and most risky wing sweep. The manual doesn't recommend this setting except for the slowest of slow adversaries. I'd guess helos and the like. Are you gonna enter the merge at that slow of an energy state? What if you need to dive? Get those wings back and you nowhere near an F-14. Wings at 33? you can tangle with F-4's all day long. And mind you, that's a setting recommended for only the most experienced of pilots. Get them at 44 degrees? Well now you are in the Phantom ball park, and not necessarily outperforming it either. Depending on which F-4 you are fighting, you actually may be losing. Bottom line, no. People have tried. They were told by the Soviets they could turn with the F-14. The Soviets told them wrong. Either because they themselves didn't know or as part of their marketing campaign. At this point it doesn't matter. Stick to fighting Mirage F1's and F-4 and you'll do fine. Go against 4th gens, even an F-14A, and you stick to slashing fly low tactics. Or don't. And see what happens. I'm for a NAVY bird, i'm not really into AF ops. Boat or bust for me! And bring on them 23's as well. it's always more fun fighting superior opposition.

Well that's where all the confusion came about. Lack of mention in official sources. And yet, it keeps popping out. It's unfortunate that less and less people remain of that era that can provide accurate accounts.

1. It's not the g-limits that hampered the early 23't though. It was more the nasty flight behavior at high AoA, and it's IIRC the cause for the aerodynamic changes. Besides, like people often mistake high g with good turning, 8, 9 or even 10 g doesn't really mean anything if you need high airspeed to pull it off. Sustained or otherwise. And the 23 falls into this category. 2. Unlike the F-14, the wing sweep on the 23 isn't really meant to be used that way. Forward wings is for landing, wings back is for dash. Middle setting is for everything else. What helps the late 23's when compared to the early ones, aside from do 'dog tooth' and some stabs changes, is that the early ones had that middle setting at 45 degrees (in fact all of them were like this, except for the MLD, which had this capability added) while as you mentioned the MLD had that setting to 33 in addition to 45. Could you decide to go landing mode while in combat? Honestly i don't know. Would it help? With those tiny wings and elevators, most likely not much. 3. Again, by hang i don't think this means actually turn and burn. Or if it does, then the report should be taken with more then a few grains of salt. At one point i considered doing a comprehensive comparison chart for the 3rd gen planes like i did for the 4th gen ones, however, obligations at work and IRL stopped me, as did the availability for data on some planes, like the F1. From what i had gathered up to that point, my observations were these: A. The ML and MLA Floggers (the ones that got lighter, reinforced to do up to 8.5 and 7.5g and got the stabs modified) raised the "maneuverability" of the plane (when in light configuration - 2 missiles and 50-60% fuel) roughly to the level of the MiG-21 BiS in similar configuration. By maneuverability here i mean capability to generate g's, that is ITR. I never bothered to calculate the excess power curves, as those take forever. The sustained turning rates are of course better then the 21 at higher speeds. B. As the late Phantoms and the late Fishbeds are actually comparable (again roughly) in turning capability, even without direct F-4 and MiG-23 comparison node for node, i would expect the 23 to be similar to the late F-4. By late here, i mean soft-winged F-4, with maneuvering devices. C. As the MLD had further improvements over the ML/MLA this should bring it somewhat above the F-4 in terms of pure turning capability. How much above? Hard to tell. I never got to do that math. Unfortunately i stopped with the MLA as mentioned. I would expect better pitch capability and tighter turns with the wings set at 33 degrees, BUT at the expense of the sustained turning capability. Could this this be made useful in flight? Well, wings are moved manually in the Flogger and fumbling around in the middle of hard maneuvers could not be easy, but i guess you could do it if you were good enough. How much would you gain? Probably enough to out turn a Phantom. A Viper? no way. The STR is not going to be better then that on the ML/MLA planes. The vortex generators and new sweep angle with help with ITR, but actually harm STR. And whatever ITR is there, i doubt it'll be enough for even an alpha limited Viper. The stars just aren't aligned for that. The Flogger just started way too behind. It was greatly improved over time, but those improvements were mostly there to remove flaws inherent into the design, thus acting like incremental steps, rather then revolutionary leaps. It remains the testimony of how much you can push a design's capability by integrated ever newer tech and understanding into an old frame (similarly to what the 21 is really), but still doesn't make the jump into the next category. LATE EDIT: On second thought, a wing sweep of 33 VS 45 degrees, may actually improve the lift to drag ratio at lower speeds, thus provide better STR as well. up to what mach number i can't say.

In mission editor. But inside the mission itself?

That would be me, but alas, that isn't going to happen. So cover it is i guess..... or heck, if simulating a AIM/ACEVAL bird, even a TCS would do.

Ah, that goes without saying. The later Floggers were definitely an evolutionary step from the early ones, and IMO probably the "best" that generation of planes had to offer. Their only real downfall was that they had to compete with Fulcrums and Flankers. This makes sense now. I apologize for my comments before. I was under impression that the comment about the 23 outperforming the early Vipers were for the entire or most of the envelope. But 500ish knots and above? Yeah, i could easily buy into that. As mentioned, all accounts seem to indicate the plane was really fast and accelerated like there was no tomorrow. Just don't expect it to wing any turning fights All in all, probably the pinnacle of the 3rd gen fighters. By these i mean, the liked of the F-4, Mirage F1, MiG-23..... To me it always looked and felt like the ultimate capability you could squeeze with that era tech.

Yeah, but the engines it seems, stayed tuned down for the rest of the service. I could never figure out if it was safety due to potential structural failure or due to operation/airflow failure.

Early Vipers where pure rocketships performance wise. They would leave in the dust the DCS Viper. On the other hand, NATO had access to at least ML and BN Floggers and those were considered to be 'worse then an F-111'. I'm ready to take that as hyperbole, but it doesn't bode well for 23. They were never considered a WVR threat in the west. Could or would aerodynamic changes and new engines help the issue? Yeah. It would make a "death coffin with departure from hell properties" a half decent plane. Will it make them a match for block 5-15 F-16A? It's within your rights to chose to believe so, but don't expect to be taken seriosuly. BUT (and there's always a but), if by outperform you (or the author) mean pure dash, especially low level, i'm inclined to believe you. From all accounts they were some of the fastest things down low. Possibly even higher.

Hey guys, this post isn't directly related to the HB module, so if a mod thinks it should be moved, feel free to do so. Anyway, a while back we had this discussion on the TF-30's performance, or to be specific it's static installed thrust as listed in the F-14 manuals and it's thrust as listed in some brochures. The difference was largely explained as loss of air due to intake geometry and bleed air, but a few of us seemed to recall that at some very early point in the development, the engine was also detuned. However, we could not find any sources on the topic and the earliest official documentation we had, appears to indicate that the engines were always rated as such (about 17000lbs in AB). None of the sources i though i read about the detuning were available to me personally anymore, so i started to think i may be imagining things. And here comes this video that I just watched. These gentlemen flew on the 2nd cruise of VF-1, so that dates them 1975-1976 IIRC, and they do mention that during their introduction to the plane, they flew them clean (as in no external tanks) and with the engines tuned for higher performance. They also mentioned they soon after that, the engines were tuned down. The exact date was not mentioned, but from the context of the interview i assume it was no later then 1977-1978. Here it is, i hope you enjoy it. I most certainly have, maybe as a result of my bias. After all this is my favorite F-14 era

Possibly. Don't know how the wiring works for that thing and how it hooks up with the rest of the systems. I mean DCS implementation wise though. I guess HB will implement it as part of the TARPS.

Amen to that

Yeah, the boat will come at some point. And i don't see it being a minor feature, so why release a new potential source for fixes when there is already a full plate to work on. We already have a carrier (or two) for basic ops. I can see the mission creators wanting to get their hands on it though. I don't know how easy it is to convert a mission with one carrier into another, but i'm guessing it's easier if you start with what you intend to use.

Or did they? The Soviets didn't have direct access to an early Viper. NATO did have access to various 23's though. And people who flew them or flew against them, had interesting things to say about them

My sound settings need reevaluation!

I'm guessing those would come with the TARPS pod?

Eh, what use is a boat, if our planes don't fly right and our stick don't shoot straight?

Generated lift is equal to the lift coefficient (Cl) times the density of the air (r) times half of the square of the velocity (V) times the WING AREA (A). Now some come here with willingness to learn, others not so much. Chose whatever path you want, but cutting and quoting posts out of context is certainly a valid way to go, if that is the choice you've made. Also, did you fail to notice that "at airshow speeds that the OP mentions" disclaimer i put in that post? Or was it convenient to omit it? It's in your quote after all.

The Soviets thought many things. Not all of them were correct.

Those clicks when going over the AB detent could be useful indeed!

Yeah, but that would be at mach 1.something (3 or 4 if memory serves?) when due to the changes in airflow, the portion of the wings that generates lift will be moved further back. Google the equations for lift generation if you think i'm wrong. As for the high speed, look at the above answers. Yeah at supersonic speeds their effect may be measurable, but at airshow speeds that the OP mentions? In my opinion hardly any. Certainly not any that would improve your capability to generate noticeably more lift.

Count R-33's in there too

The contribution to the lift would be roughly proportional to the increase in lifting surface, which doesn't look like all that much to be honest.

I don't get it. Are you implying the glove vanes will generate enough lift to enable you to pull g's that you otherwise couldn't that slow? They also extended when wing sweep was (manually) put to bomb mode. Indeed.