garrya

I think this is more or less propaganda-overly advertising Active cancellation is similar to plasma stealth , it is a myth , the only way for it to work is if some how Rafale can transmit from everywhere on it's airframe at all directions , that quite impossible not to mention the timing to cause destructive interference

So F-14 can reach mach 2.4 bellow 14000 feet ? . At its corner speed F-16 with CFT can pull about 8-8.3G at 30k feet Then again F-16 is AoA limited and as a small fighter it is affected more by weapon load than F-14 , F-15

Neither the curve surface of F-14 or F-15 are called LERX or can achieve what F-16 LERX can If you count the curvry part then I have to say F-15 LERX have very high sweep too I doubt that , F-15 out performe both F-14 and F-16 at high altitude Iam sure F-14D don't have the golves vane anymore http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-glovevane.htm Iam skeptical of that , shape can sometime deceiving Mig-25 look like a brick yet it fly higher and faster than all fighter su-27 look sleek yet it is slower than F-15 But then F-16 is AoA limited We probably should left missiles out of comparison since with modern HOBS missiles a few degree superior in tun rate is rather irrelevant

Similar to mig-25 so I think that pretty high sweep They can increase lift at AOA similar to F-15 belly , but of course it won't be like F-16 LERX Gloves vanes are deploy at supersonic for stability and F-14D don't have them anymore I don't think we can really tell from pictures , there are too limited number of picture where F-15 , F-14 even produce even a small amount of vortex Which is quite hard because F-14 wing have different CL at different sweep angle Then high yoyo ? Most of the time it better than going too slow and have no energy I think the problem is nose point ing or Max ITR required you to either success or face really bad consequences , in game it OK because if you die you can start over , in real life most pilot would play it safe

F-14 is not a negative stability design at dogfight speed , at high speed it is only slighty negative stability , unlike F-16which will practically pitch up and then fall down without FBW

O Firstly different in altitude will make different in dynamics pressure at the same speed , mach 1 at sea level is quick , mach 1 at 60k feet is like a slug So obviously the speed at which f-14 sweep its wing back is different depending on altitude , and I don't think F-14 fully fold it's wing back at speed lower than mach 0.85 ,10-15k feet If we ignore all glimit in flight manual like you said then ITR line more or less have practically similar pattern with STR line in F-16 graph , unless F-14 some how get anti gravity device then I expect it to be similar And you seem to be confused , no one say lift doesnot increase as you go faster , what Iam trying to say is even though lift does increase as F-14 go faster , it no longer produce as much more lift than F-15 and F-16 when it go fast , because it's wing have to fold back , let say F-14 have 1.5 times more ITR than F-16 at mach 0.5 then it need to produce 1.5 times more lift per kg weight than F-16 at that speed which could be possible because it's wing can fully sweep out , if it want maintain that ratio at mach 0.8 or mach 2 then it's wing need to produce exactly 1.5 times more lift per kg weight than F-16 at that speed too , very unlikely when youbfold back your wing Depending on AoA and speed , at AoA=0 , subsonic speed then obviously critical airfoil is better , at high supersonic then supersonic airfoil is a better design . At high AoA then both are practically the same Yes obviously , that how F-14 get high ITR at low speed because its wing fully sweep out And CL value isn't the only thing to consider , norminal wing area is important too ( before you talk about body lift and what not remember that all these are included in CL already ) Wrong , negative stability increase lift because the tail now increase lift instead of counter it Well you don't know that , clearly F-15 design work well at altitude so it isn't as bad as you think in term of lift

That would depending on altitude it fly at F-15 have same curvy part as f-14 and It belly also provide lift ( enough to fly with 1 wing only ) How could it be false ? F-15 main wing have bigger area and obviously you cannot have the same cl value when the wingbfold back and when it sweep out You know the norminal wing area and CL value then you can estimate lift at certain speed , altitude F-16 have LERX and negative stability , F-15 also have lift from it belly so i wouldnt call the F-14 very much ahead in that regard

F-14A with wing gloves

Then in that case F-15 also have same mechanism and highly sweep wing does it not ? Big it also have more weight to work again On head on pass from 10-15 km shouldnt it be very easy to point missiles at target ? ( since missiles get more energy from your speedt you can launch missiles from further distance ) How about doing high yoyo instead ? But wouldnt going slow (sacrifile energy for the turn ) also make you a really easy target incase target have wingman or if you miss the shot ?.

I can see the F-16 have much bigger vortex but F-14 and F-15 look practically the same

That not the question , excocet said turn radius help because you can turn around first , hence i said "how can you turn around quicker if you turn slower " ( because aircraft turn slower unless they are in their corner speed ) And F-14 will only have advantages of ITR at all speed if you ignore all glimit and what not

They did the exact ly same thing with the F-15 too with similar result http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19790010115

You have the measurement when it fully sweep out but not when it is fold back It's STR is something like 0.6 degrees/second at 50k feet as i remember You are still based this on the conclusion that G limit doesnt matter and pulling G higher than structure limit pose no danger . and as i said from the start i cant take your words for it because the F-14 pilot in the interview say his aircraft is limit to 6-7G , the manual state the limit at 6-7.5g depending on the weight too , an there also source that state "in testing there an F-14 that suffer huge structure damage because pilot pull more g than limit " Yes the lift continues to be higher as aircraft go faster or higher AoA but you dont know the exact shape of the missing lift curve What does delta platform has to do with LERX here ? The thing on F-14 and F-15 arenot lerx and they are not used to create vortex when turning Not at all speed because at high speed it wing fold back , hence it no longer have the much superior CL like it does at slow speed

Still un convinced Never saw an F-14 turn with this much vortex And according to engineer i talked to , the big radius of the "LERX" on f-15 , F-14 just make the flow curve over instead of create the vortex . Going faster give your missiles more energy (range )does it not ? If it get you the kill then it wouldnt be a bad move , but if it isnt then well How can you turn around first if you turn slower ? That true 9M can still be defeated by flares , and also F-15 , F-16 are fully able to use AIM-9X python-5 and HMD by now so i think if we gonna use missiles it practically the same between all fighter

I know limiter prevent F-16 from stalling but an unstable design will benefit when turning because

That what I have been trying to say The part on the side of F-15 and F-14 are exactly the same , neither is sharp enough to produce vortex like F-16 LERX Iam not quite sure what you trying to say but some time pilot use their ITR instead of STR , in that case aircraft will lose a large amount of speed so a fast acceleration rate to regain energy (speed ) is very useful That is true , but then in that case with something like AIM-9X and HMD there would be practically little to no different between an F-14 , F-15 or F-16 I really can't imagine the dogfight situation when pilot actually sacrifile his turn rate and speed for turn radius even in you example And I haven't heard any pilot talk about it either , the closest thing is nose point ng but that is still sacrifile speed for turn rate not turn radius

Without actual measurement i dont think you can concluded which fighter benefit more from body lift Especially in the case of F-16 it have significant advantage from negative stability design and LERX You can argue that F-14 benefit more from body lift than F-15 but then again F-15 already have much lower wingloading (reference wing area )than either F-14 ,F-16 If F-14 have alot more lift /weight than F-16 then it should perform very good at altiude with variable inlet ( which it isnt really ) The lift curve is high could be the result from the variable geometri wing too , they can be at a smaller sweep angle than F-15 , F-16 hence create more lift at low speed F-15 have very sharp intake too ( i would say not that much different from F-14 ) And I dont think the picture is really the vortex in the form that F-16 LERX created , it look more or less like the water vapor that appear when you turn at high speed , there a similar thing happen to F-15 but with larger scale Iam not saying you draw the lift line , surely total lift increase as aircraft go at higher AoA and higher speed , whether the aircraft can stand that or not is another thing i said you draw the ITR line which are not in the manual and clearly excess the structure limit , if you want aircraft to turn pass the structure limit tgen why only do that to F-14 ? Why not F-16 ? Why not F-15 It's graph is limited at 9G line too , and how about AoA limit ...etc Yes but it does benefit at BVR because pilot often accelerate pass mach 1 before lauching their missiles at enemy , a better high speed sustain turn rate help in that case if you want to reduce closuare rate of enemy missiles while dont want to waste all energy making a bat turn Which doesnt matter because that not the corner speed of F-15 , there is no reason for F-15 pilot to slow down and reduce his turn rate and energy Let put it simply this way , A piston fighter like zero or spitfire will easily have much better turn rate than any jet at slow speed , if you pilot a jet fighter and have to fight a piston fighter would you slow down and fly with them in their corner speed ? Or will you accelerate to vertical ( or at least your own corner speed )? You forgot to mention that after making the hard turn if the F-14 pilot fail to shot down F-15 ,F-16 adversary ( which is not easy at alll because F-15 roll very fast and F-16 roll even faster )then the F-14 will deplete most of its speed and become and easy target F-14 best ITR is at around mach 0.55 when it is already slow , the PS of the turn is -1000 , it would be very sluggish after that turn , not much better than X-31 when stalling Actually as shown in WW II turn- burn fighter does do so well again zoom-boom fighters You know what , we are going in circles now and it rather tiring for both There is no way for you to convince me that F-14 have G limit similar to F-16 , F-15 And there is no way for me to convince you otherwise So how about just let it at there and agree to disagree ? If there is suddenly some actual pilot come and state his opinion about this then fine we can continue ,

Hmm where that 2000 lbs come from ? :huh: could that be from the weight of the CFT ? A bit confuding when in the manual of HAF F-16 they listed engine kind as PW F-100/CFT Yes , because i want to hear from some expert , i alway cross check between forums

Any one have the accurate fin size of AIM-120A and AIM-120B ?

On a side note about F-16 using GE and F-16 using PW engine F-16 with GE engine and big inlet can turn much better Vs

all F-15 , F-16 pilots that asked said STR , speed and climb ability (t/w ) are important in dogfight , depending on situation they can trade speed or altitude or altitude for speed , or speed and altitude for turn rate nose pointing is also mentioned that they can be useful in some situation but I have never talked to any pilot that say turn radius is very important or that he will trade both speed , and turn rate for smaller turn radius F-15 and F-16 have body lift design too there is a case when F-15 able to fly back to base with 1 wing completely broken about F-16 , it have 40% lift from the body another advantage of F-16 over F-14 and F-15 is the negative stability design , which mean it's tail fin contribute to total lift rather than counter it F-14 doesnot have Lerx , it have gloves vane ( btw F-14D doesn't even have the gloves vanes ) that thing have very different purpose from a LERX here is gloves vanes LERX need to be sharp enough to create vortex F-16 create thick vortex like this even at high AoA at low speed the wing sweep angle of F-14 is less than either F-15 and F-16 hence it provide bigger Cl value hence superior lift and from that come the instantaneous turn rate however at higher speed F-14 doesnot enjoy that advantage anymore because it's wing now have to sweep back so it face the same situation as F-16 and F-15 no one say the line just stop , it continues but it steepness change because the wing sweep angle of F-14 change as it go faster ( Cl value isnot the same anymore ) In conclusion you cannot just added the line as you like into the graph , if such things was possible then testing aircraft for all speed range wouldn't be necessary anymore STR is more complicated because you have to take drag , thrust into consideration too , and the sustain turn rate of F-14 reduce a lot after mach 0.55 which mean that either it's engine doesn't provide enough thrust to fight again the drag increase or that at higher speed the wing sweep back so doesn't provide F-14 with as much lift anymore well no it isn't For example at mach 1.2 the STR of F-15 is 5.5 degree/ second , the STR of F-14 is around 5.3 degrees/ second but the F-16 STR is about 8 degree/seconds Hummidbird the EM graph from manual you posted literally have the 6.5G limit line on it , and there others part in the manual mentioned the limit as well If excess the limit only reduce the service life and doesn't have any destructive effect then there would be some guide in the manual about it , but here there is no thing , they don't even draw the line above 6.5G Also F-14 isn't the only aircraft that have structure limit , all other airframes have it too depending on how much weapons they carry The F-15 have a Vmax switch that can reduce service life of Its engine significantly too but there is detail guide in the manual about how to use it in specific situation

can you just post the actual chart of F-14 at sea level or 5k feet instead .?

I read what you wrote and my opinion is that it is irrelevant Because the F-15 would not fly at the F-14 corner speed so that itself turn slower , and the F-14 won't turn at F-15 corner speed either , hence the correct way would be to compare their respective Max sustainable turn rate I don't underestimate the important of speed in turning Corner speed of F-16 at 10k feet and DI 50 is around mach 0.84-0.85 too and it's sustainable G is lower than F-15 almost 1G , there aren't no way F-15 Max sustainable turn rate is less than F-16 and F-14 in that situation Measure it if you want turn rate = [1091*tan(bank angle)] /[true air speed in knots] G-load is 1/cos( bank angle) Wing loading of F-14 is around 468 kg/m2 that is higher than F-16 and much higher than F-15 Along with the fact that F-16 have LERX it will have better CL value at AoA compare to both F-14 and F-15 And you cannot just draw or connect an imagine max turn rate line , they are not liner , and aircraft don't turn at the same AoA at all speed , different wing configuratition lead to very different CL , Cd and stall AoA What F-14 have over F-15 and F-16 is that it can swing it's wing out at less sweep angle hence it turn very good at slow speed, but that won't happen at faster speed That mean F-14 with heavy load will be affected less than F-16 and F-15 , but it also mean as the load get lighter the performance of f-14 doesn't change much while F-16 performance will improve significantly Which is why I think it is unrealistic for them to carry full load till dogfight and don't lauch a single missiles Hummingbird , it doesn't matter if you repeat it , because it only your words and your guess is only as good as mine The problem is the flight manual limited F-14 to 6.5G as well and even F-14 pilot admited his aircraft is limited to 7.5G You have to see it from my point of view " why should I trust you more than the flight manual and pilot word " ? http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-...imp-1610043625 And yes I know there are case F-14 do something like 15G and still survive but it is the exception not the rules , there are case mig-25 turn more than 10G and still survive but that doesn't mean we will treat it as if Mig-25 can turn upward 10 G all the time But it cannot do that , you cannot assume that because at one point in the envelope your aircraft have better ITR then at all points your aircraft have better ITR , For one aircraft doesn't turn at same AoA at all speed , secondly the Reynolds number is not gonna be the same across the envelope Just post the turn rate graph for F-14 at sea level or 5000K feet then we will see Why would you think F-14 can easily take 9g while the manual andt say otherwise ? Turn rate doesn't work like that as explained before Here the thing for you to consider , what if because F-14 have to constantly sustain stress when landing on carrier , that develop crack in airframe that break the aircraft if it turn too hard , hence the limit Where did you get the figure that small inlet reduce thrust by 2000 lbs ? F-110GE 129 produce 29500 pounds of thrust so there no way F-16N have more thrust than F-16 block 50/52 And what is the weight of F-16N ? Anyway F-16N is lighter so it will have better ITR but it doesn't necessarily have better STR because STR is factor of drag as well ,and while F-16 have exactly the same outer aerodynamic , it will have less thrust to fight again drag

I think roll rate is very importance in dogfight , it help you change direction and jink enemy

still affected F-14, F-15 much less than it does to F-16 , and I think it is reasonable to assume that they atleast launched a few missiles from BVR hummid bird you do it the wrong way , you compare the sustain turn rate of F-15 when f-15 isn't in it's corner speed with the sustain turn rate of F-14 when f-14 is in it's corner speed , that give an unfair advantage to F-14 the right way to do it is compare their maximum STR at their respective corner speed from the chart bellow F-14 corner speed is mach 0.55 , F-15 corner speed is mach 0.85 similar to F-16 However it is important to note that in our earlier comparison the F-16 with DI 50 managed to get the same max STR with F-14D although even a clean F-16 with 50% fuel cannot sustain more than 7G at 10K feet , now the F-15 in our comparison can sustain 7.5G at 10K feet , what does that say ? , it mean the F-15 will have better max sustain turn rate than both F-14D and F-16 at 10K feet as far as I know at high speed F-15 will turn better than F-16 , and F-16 easily out turn F-14 at around mach 0.8 -0.85 ) , so this is actually very unlikely Actually no eventhough heavier load affected aircraft , they don't effected all aircraft the same way 4 GBU-12 on F-16 will affected it a lot more than on a F-14 or F-15 and so on , it have to do with their relative size and wetted area which could be a problem because it can lead to structure failure of the aircraft , hence the G limit are in manual Can you post the chart for F-14 at 5000 feet or sea level ? I already have F-16 chart what important is their max sustain turn rate at their corner speed for example at 10k feet : F-14 have superior STR at mach 0.55 , F-16 have superior STR at mach 0.85 however they both have the same max sustain turn rate of 14-15 degrees/second my point is that even though at sea level or 5000 feet F-14 still good at low speed , F-16 still good at high speed , the max sustain turn rate of F-16 will be much better than F-14 I don't think F-14 enjoy advantage of ITR across the entire speed and envelop for example from the chart bellow at mach 0.85 the ITR of F-14 is merely 11 degree/ seconds while the ITR of F-16 is 19 degrees/second which mean F-16 turn almost 2 times faster F-16N based on the early-production small-inlet Block 30 F-16C/D airframe hence it cannot provide enough air flow for the F-110 engine result in less thrust than latter F-16 that have big mouth inlet and actually F-16 even in clean configuration is still a slug at high altitude compare to F-15 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article22.html