How is f-14 maneuverability?

[Top Jockey]

Glad it was useful ! :thumbup:

[The Black Swan]

Yes that was very nice!

[RaceFuel85]

That article is a bit...cheerleader intense.

 

The Tomcat was retired because it was a 1960's design that was designed to be serviced by 60's level staffing. Even the Strike Tomcat 21 or whatever they were going to call it was hampered by Grumman's refusal to fundamentally modernize the Tomcat's bones to make it less of a MMH hog.

 

Keep in mind the Tomcat was never intended to survive as long as it did. It was supposed to be replaced, much like the F-15, by the NATF in the mid 90's. However, like the F-15, delays (and in the Tomcats case, cancellation) of it's replacement meant it was going to have to soldier on much longer. It was expected and required of the Tomcat to only be "superior" for roughly 15 years (or if we round up the Tomcats in-service date of 1974..1990) before being replaced.

 

In an ideal world the Tomcat would have been replaced and phased out by 1995 by the NATF, the A-6 by the A-12 and the Hornet would have continued supplanting and replacing the A-7. However that didn't happen, so the Super Hornet was developed and the Tomcat had to hold out for another 26 years.

 

Such is life.

[Ghostrider142]

I would read every post by the users Hummingbird and LunaticFringe on the F-14. Most of the good ones were in debates in older threads that I went back and read.

 

A detailed treatise on the high maneuverability on the Tomcat could be constructed using their posts (and accompanying documentation) alone.

[Top Jockey]

That article is a bit...cheerleader intense.

 

The Tomcat was retired because it was a 1960's design that was designed to be serviced by 60's level staffing. Even the Strike Tomcat 21 or whatever they were going to call it was hampered by Grumman's refusal to fundamentally modernize the Tomcat's bones to make it less of a MMH hog.

 

Keep in mind the Tomcat was never intended to survive as long as it did. It was supposed to be replaced, much like the F-15, by the NATF in the mid 90's. However, like the F-15, delays (and in the Tomcats case, cancellation) of it's replacement meant it was going to have to soldier on much longer. It was expected and required of the Tomcat to only be "superior" for roughly 15 years (or if we round up the Tomcats in-service date of 1974..1990) before being replaced.

 

In an ideal world the Tomcat would have been replaced and phased out by 1995 by the NATF, the A-6 by the A-12 and the Hornet would have continued supplanting and replacing the A-7. However that didn't happen, so the Super Hornet was developed and the Tomcat had to hold out for another 26 years.

 

Such is life.

 

Yeah... cheerleader intense... but I don't see you contributing on-topic "F-14 maneuverability" with the same useful info and knowledge he does.

[turkeydriver]

That article is a bit...cheerleader intense.

 

The Tomcat was retired because it was a 1960's design that was designed to be serviced by 60's level staffing. Even the Strike Tomcat 21 or whatever they were going to call it was hampered by Grumman's refusal to fundamentally modernize the Tomcat's bones to make it less of a MMH hog.

 

Keep in mind the Tomcat was never intended to survive as long as it did. It was supposed to be replaced, much like the F-15, by the NATF in the mid 90's. However, like the F-15, delays (and in the Tomcats case, cancellation) of it's replacement meant it was going to have to soldier on much longer. It was expected and required of the Tomcat to only be "superior" for roughly 15 years (or if we round up the Tomcats in-service date of 1974..1990) before being replaced.

 

In an ideal world the Tomcat would have been replaced and phased out by 1995 by the NATF, the A-6 by the A-12 and the Hornet would have continued supplanting and replacing the A-7. However that didn't happen, so the Super Hornet was developed and the Tomcat had to hold out for another 26 years.

 

Such is life.

Not quite. Super Hornet was developed long before the F-14 was cancelled solely because of its anemic range and lack of weapons bring back ability. It didn't have the same wing and existed only in drawing and idea form, but the cancellation of the Tomcat allowed it to be funded as it was the only design that could be funded as an interim replacement until the arrival of JSF.

[RaceFuel85]

Not quite. Super Hornet was developed long before the F-14 was cancelled solely because of its anemic range and lack of weapons bring back ability. It didn't have the same wing and existed only in drawing and idea form, but the cancellation of the Tomcat allowed it to be funded as it was the only design that could be funded as an interim replacement until the arrival of JSF.

 

There's a difference between "proposed" and "developed". The idea for an improved F/A-18 was first floated in 1984, but the Navy rejected it. In 1989 then SecDef Cheney, justifying it as "60's era technology" and that the F-14 was little more than a jobs program, drastically cut the F-14D purchase (and thereby eliminating the all F-14D fleet the Navy had initially wanted) and killed the F-14 program entirely in 1990 before F-14D production even fully began. Two days after the F-14 program was terminated the Navy announced the Super Hornet program, which is when the F/A-18E/F was *developed* in earnest, IE taking concept and actually drawing up designs. Four years later the first Super Hornet prototype flew.

 

In terms of maneuverability of the Tomcat..it's entirely dependent on which motors it had. The F-14A was hampered by the TF-30's, which meant the pilots had to spend more time carefully flying the motors vs actually flying the aircraft (air frame) to its' maximum potential. The same was true of the early F-15A, given the F100 engine also had issues with aggressive throttle movement in some realms of the envelope and flight conditions.

[captain_dalan]

That article is a bit...cheerleader intense.

 

The Tomcat was retired because it was a 1960's design that was designed to be serviced by 60's level staffing. Even the Strike Tomcat 21 or whatever they were going to call it was hampered by Grumman's refusal to fundamentally modernize the Tomcat's bones to make it less of a MMH hog.

 

Keep in mind the Tomcat was never intended to survive as long as it did. It was supposed to be replaced, much like the F-15, by the NATF in the mid 90's. However, like the F-15, delays (and in the Tomcats case, cancellation) of it's replacement meant it was going to have to soldier on much longer. It was expected and required of the Tomcat to only be "superior" for roughly 15 years (or if we round up the Tomcats in-service date of 1974..1990) before being replaced.

 

In an ideal world the Tomcat would have been replaced and phased out by 1995 by the NATF, the A-6 by the A-12 and the Hornet would have continued supplanting and replacing the A-7. However that didn't happen, so the Super Hornet was developed and the Tomcat had to hold out for another 26 years.

 

Such is life.

 

Sure thing mate. Just ignore 2+ years of forum history and 39 pages on topic (with quite some neat documentation if i might add) and just chose to believe whatever it is that suits you best :thumbup:

[RaceFuel85]

Sure thing mate. Just ignore 2+ years of forum history and 39 pages on topic (with quite some neat documentation if i might add) and just chose to believe whatever it is that suits you best :thumbup:

 

So beyond arguing semantics in a chicken and the egg scenario of who was developed first and what caused what...what did I say that was incorrect?

[captain_dalan]

The Tomcat was retired because it was a 1960's design that was designed to be serviced by 60's level staffing.

 

I have some idea who you quoted there. And just because he did say so, it doesn't mean he was right. The reasons were numerous and much more complex. Look up the forums if interested in details.

 

Keep in mind the Tomcat was never intended to survive as long as it did. It was supposed to be replaced, much like the F-15, by the NATF in the mid 90's. However, like the F-15, delays (and in the Tomcats case, cancellation) of it's replacement meant it was going to have to soldier on much longer....snip.....

In an ideal world the Tomcat would have been replaced and phased out by 1995 by the NATF

 

Both wrong and right. Right on the account of the A, possibly wrong on the account of the B, all wrong on the accounts of C and D. The Alphas were originally supposed to be replaced by the B's (not the F110 powered ones). Even if i can somehow foresee all the B's replaced by 1995, i just don't see the C's and D's which would have entered service later, dropping out by 1995.

 

Of course, things change and plan or budget survives first contact with the enemy, so......we never got the B's and C's, and as you know, the D was a stillborn.

[Greekbull]

Pretty awesome minimum radius turn circa 1986...

[VampireNZ]

Ha - saw this thread...though meh it will just be ppl arguing and no real info about F-14 maneuverability

 

Nailed it...:thumbup:

[captain_dalan]

Ha - saw this thread...though meh it will just be ppl arguing and no real info about F-14 maneuverability

 

Nailed it...:thumbup:

 

One of the things i love the most about these forums.....yeah, on occasion there is some arguing, but there is also STUFF!!! Lots and lots of data and quite a bit of myth busting! :thumbup:

[frodrigues2016]

The manouverabilty of the F-14 is probable slow at low speeds and fast at high speeds its wings are swing and probable it cant handle hard manouvers...also its a very large jet i think large jets like the F-14 are slower in manouvers compared with the A-4 has shown in the movie TOPGUN.:pilotfly:

[captain_dalan]

Aaaaaaand i stand corrected :doh: :wallbash:

[VampireNZ]

Aaaaaaand i stand corrected :doh: :wallbash:

 

Well....you were right - there is STUFF!

 

:megalol:

Edited July 2, 2017 by VampireNZ

[captain_dalan]

Yeah, no matter what, we'll always have the STUFF :megalol:

[turkeydriver]

The manouverabilty of the F-14 is probable slow at low speeds and fast at high speeds its wings are swing and probable it cant handle hard manouvers...also its a very large jet i think large jets like the F-14 are slower in manouvers compared with the A-4 has shown in the movie TOPGUN.:pilotfly:

Sarcasm edited out........

 

The F-14 is heavy, and does not roll like smaller fighters-but this due mostly to lack of ailerons(swing wing). The weight of the AWG-9 and 2 person cockpit limits alpha maneuvers at low speeds. The early F/A-18As( Lot IX and earlier) had a lighter nose that you could point everywhere at very low speeds. The later models with the APG-73 had a heavy nose that impacted their low speed authority. Corner Speed is anywhere from 330-360 knots depending on weight and altitude in the F-14, this will give you comparable turn rates to other fourth gen fighters.

Edited July 3, 2017 by turkeydriver

[captain_dalan]

You need to research facepalm and how it perfectly applies to your comment.

 

:suspect::protest:....sllort eht deef t'nod ....

[Cobra847]

Be nice!

[Dino Might]

Be nice!

 

Fastest way to self-policing:

"For every rude comment, we delay beta release by a day."

 

And then it's beer and Skittles all around, until all the pent up comments flood out on beta release day +1. :lol:

[turkeydriver]

:suspect::protest:....sllort eht deef t'nod ....

 

Sarcasm edited out.

[antagonist]

Fastest way to self-policing:

"For every rude comment, we delay beta release by a day."

 

And then it's beer and Skittles all around, until all the pent up comments flood out on beta release day +1. :lol:

 

This the part where I tell you to have your account renamed to 'Scapegoat'.

 

Don't give them ideas the majority of us won't like. :(

[Cobra847]

The "simple" answer for this is: It's pretty darn maneouverable! It is- however, very different from flying e.g. an F-15C or Mirage 2000.

 

The rather simplistic AFCS does not help much at the edge of the flight envelope, keeping her steady and stable in a knifefight is a challenge. You'll also find no difficulty in finding situations where you'll kill yourself, both at low and high speeds and regardless of current wingsweep setting. Hard pulls on the stick at high speeds and with wings swept is an interesting experience!

 

We're very happy with where the aerodynamics of our model are currently. We're neck deep in the main tweaking pass, where we nudge things in the right direction to adhere to all sorts of performance data.

Once some time frees' up, we'll be posting plenty of FM highlight videos. :)

[lunaticfringe]

Thread was making me *so* glad I've bothered to repeatedly share data here.

 

Then comes Nick, reminding me I'm ecstatic at having shared substantially more with him. ;)