How is f-14 maneuverability?

[NORTHMAN]

Let me put this to bed like I did in il2, it's not about who can turn the tightest, it's about altitude speed, energy and TURN RADIUS, just like when people say the p51 can't out turn the 109, it can at high speeds but not below 200 mph, I believe at certain speeds, with the wings swept at the right angle and certain altitude it could hang for a while, you all gotta remember that the su27 is a heavy plane, and just because it can pull a cobra without any missiles and a certain fuel loading at an airshow doesn't mean it's a modern day zero

 

OK, yes you're right and I know it! I mean its a flight simulator forum here and people has experiment exactly what you're write (probably almost every one), no one write it like you do but I assume people here are smart (majority..), and understand exactly what we are talking about! :doh:

[NORTHMAN]

 

Flogger ( especially later variants ) will eat F-14 in dogfight easily, BVR it's different story. Better rate of climb, higher trust to weight ratio, lower wing load. I know F-14 it's beautiful aircraft but she is like big cow, and can't be change into racing horse. Tomcat was create as a interceptor for defeating Soviet naval bombers and they missiles nothing more. The same story like with MiG-25 and 31, you can tell about them lot of things but definitely they are not dogfighters.

 

??? Is there any proof of it, I dont see the flogger maneuvering at all in every video i can find! I see it roling and, well, nothing more! I' not saying i'm right, but I cant find any evidence!

 

Mig-25 and MiG-31 are not dogfighter... its true.. shoot missiles and full power turning back! so well thats it! :D

[Nerdwing]

Floggers have always been kinda weird...

 

I always figured them to be the super-Phantom analogue, not in intended role but in terms of capability. So it defeats the Phantom handily in most areas. But F14... ehhh...

[captain_dalan]

Floggers have always been kinda weird...

 

I always figured them to be the super-Phantom analogue, not in intended role but in terms of capability. So it defeats the Phantom handily in most areas. But F14... ehhh...

 

Yeah, think of Floggers as in the same class as the Starfighter, Phantom II and Mirage F1, but better (more advanced) then all of them. Sort of like the pinnacle of that line of though. Great aircraft all in all, but far too many deathtraps in the envelope to try and use it aggressively in a WVR fight. Not to mention cockpit visibility or the lack of it there off.

 

EDIT: All this doesn't mean you can't win in a dogfight, it's just that the straightforward turn and burn method is not you best bet. An ambush, a bounce, or well terrain masked GCI would work better.

[King_Hrothgar]

I think of the MiG-23 much the same way, it's a better MiG-21. The purpose of the swing wings was to allow it to use a shorter runway without sacrificing high speed performance.

[lunaticfringe]

A few points:

 

1. The F-14 was built from the ground up as a maritime air superiority aircraft, meaning that it was required to beat all expected threats at the time of its design- not just bombers and cruise missiles, but opposing fighters. The aircraft was intended to not only defend the carrier, but escort strike packages over land- right into the opposing air defense, meaning you've got to be ready to hassle.

 

Grumman was well into the process of designing the airframe when the F-111B went down the shitter- the Navy had been granting the firm funds to design an advanced fighter follow-on to the Phantom, meaning that they already had an ace up their sleeve when McNamara's stupidity blew up in their face.

 

The ability of the Tomcat to carry both the AWG-9 and palleted Phoenix was a byproduct of the decision-making of their engineers at the time to build a flexible machine- long loiter, high dash speed, built while maintaining a low wing loading, and good performance behind the boat. The pancake was engineered for performance; it was simply made to be compatible with the AIM-54. Thus, it will turn, and it will turn better than many expect. At right around 0.65 Mach, you will generate a bat-turn, even in the A, that will make a Viper driver shit his pants. The problem is that in the A, you only get this turn one time- you need to either use it to end, or use it to leave.

 

2. The Navy didn't like the original programming for the wing sweep provided by Grumman. The logic originally intended for the F-14 was based around CL max; this generated more wing flex than the admirals liked (because the wings were fully extended through 0.75 or so Mach), and so the programming was changed to Ps max. Essentially, performance was left on the table in the name of perceived longevity.

 

3. In conjunction with this decision came the standing load limit of 6.5G. Talk to "Snort" Snodgrass (and if you're talking Tomcats you know who he is- otherwise, GTFO), and he'll tell you his old man- who was a test pilot on the F-14 program, and his fellow testers, were instructed to fly the jet like it was a *13G* machine.

 

Going with normal 1.5x strength standards, this means that the Tomcat was built for ~9G. Again, performance left on the table. And Muczynski was glad it was built that strong, because he pulled 10 getting away from the Fitter carcass that blew up in his face- the Sidewinder didn't look like it was going track, so he was converting for guns.

 

Lastly, 4:

 

Flogger ( especially later variants ) will eat F-14 in dogfight easily

 

PSA: Dope is bad for you.

 

The MiG-23 is an abject display of garbage- higher wing loading, lower CL at max sweep, lower available AoA at max sweep. The reduced G requirement to invoke wingsweep is an embarrassment to the concept, meaning you're running what you brought to the fight, rather than being flexible within. The engine integration was a disaster. And let's trust in a manufacturing process so poor that their wing-box implementation as a fuel tank required reinforcement, because the welds weren't able to survive exposure to JP.

 

So yeah- tell me about how a Flogger will beat a Tomcat 1 v 1 inside five miles, and you'll see me laughing at you. All. Day. Long.

Edited March 5, 2015 by lunaticfringe

[captain_dalan]

Pretty solid info. Most of it was actually in that Modern Marvels documentary special, dedicated to the F-14. And if i recall correctly, the original concept (before the canning of the F-111B) called for a smaller and much lighter platform. It was the need to carry the AWG-9/Phoenix system that made the plane heavier. Even so, it turned out pretty maneuverable for a beastie of that size (in the mach 0.5-0.65 region, they could sustain their turns better then most; and i am talking the TF30 engined birds).

 

 

EDIT: considering the 23's flight characteristics; it's not just about wing loading and T/W. It's also about optimum lift to drag and even more important controlability under hard maneuvering. The Floggers before the mid 80's would start to buffet at any true alpha above 10 or so degrees. The later modified version could probably delay the buffet onset to around 15 or so. But trying to outpoint an opponent in a Flogger is tricky at best. You'd have very low nose authority. That is why you fly it fast, and keep the alpha low.

Edited March 5, 2015 by captain_dalan

[lunaticfringe]

And if i recall correctly, the original concept (before the canning of the F-111B) called for a smaller and much lighter platform.

Not really. Take note of the various 303 design studies dimensions; that was what Grumman spent the money the USN was giving them for engineering work on the side, separate from the F-111B. None of them were substantially smaller than the eventual F-14. And although the intention may not have been to stuff the AWG-9 in there wholesale, you can be certain the Navy was going to want a substantial upgrade from the APQ-72, which meant you needed to prepare for weight.

 

That said, when it comes to getting into the fight, aircraft weight matters less than wing loading, because the latter is where your induced drag stems from. You can deal with a lower T/W ratio if you're paying a lesser cost for every degree of turn than the other guy for the same G. Higher wing loading- net induced drag increase in the corner. If the F-14 had half the wing (ergo, no body lift), it would have the net turn performance of something like a Mirage F1 (or a MiG-23, for that matter). Instead, if you don't tear everything up, you can sustain, and you can do it slower, and with a smaller radius, than just about anybody else. Otherwise, you need bigger motors to net the same performance benefit.

 

The trick of all of this is that folks don't "see" what they think should be the net increase of the F110s when they look at the performance charts. They look for it right along the Max CL curve, but that's not where the full grunt of the GE's come online at; there's some, but the point is that you punch through that region faster based on the difference in output to get right up to where the difference lies- right around 0.6 Mach; while it only looks like there is 1 additional G sustained at that point (5 vs 6) there is 66% more Ps at that point, being .60 Mach and 5k feet in the *heavier* D in the 4x4 configuration- 500 ft/sec vs 300.

 

It does beg the question whether or not all of the curves were properly confirmed on the A+/D charts, because your induced drag is going to essentially be the same on both airframes. But it's really no big deal- so long as the proper subsonic acceleration is there, the performance will work itself out.

 

Re: -23. It's bad all away round, such that I've often wondered if the development of the R-73 (based around the Navy's work with VTAS) wasn't really supposed to be for the Flogger. Reason being that, while it surrenders Rmin to the Sidewinder, the off-boresight ability played directly to the MiG-23s strengths- running. Get some offset and angle running into the merge, take a face shot while pointed at an acute angle, and split.

Edited March 5, 2015 by lunaticfringe

[Dudikoff]

The aircraft was intended to not only defend the carrier, but escort strike packages over land- right into the opposing air defense, meaning you've got to be ready to hassle.

 

I have recently read exactly the opposite - that since the Navy's mission in that period of the Cold War did not include deep strike missions, only coastal areas; hence why the Tomcat's self-defense suite was quite lacking for self-sufficient overland operations and had to be revamped in the 90s when the emphasis moved towards carrier operations closer to the shore.

[captain_dalan]

Not really. Take note of the various 303 design studies dimensions; that was what Grumman spent the money the USN was giving them for engineering work on the side, separate from the F-111B. None of them were substantially smaller than the eventual F-14. And although the intention may not have been to stuff the AWG-9 in there wholesale, you can be certain the Navy was going to want a substantial upgrade from the APQ-72, which meant you needed to prepare for weight.

 

...........

 

The trick of all of this is that folks don't "see" what they think should be the net increase of the F110s when they look at the performance charts. They look for it right along the Max CL curve, but that's not where the full grunt of the GE's come online at; there's some, but the point is that you punch through that region faster based on the difference in output to get right up to where the difference lies- right around 0.6 Mach; while it only looks like there is 1 additional G sustained at that point (5 vs 6) there is 66% more Ps at that point, being .60 Mach and 5k feet in the *heavier* D in the 4x4 configuration- 500 ft/sec vs 300.

 

.....

 

I know about the actual Grumman concepts being of similar size, but there is something stuck in my mind about an interview with one of the designers. I think he mentioned that Grumman was actually already working on the next navy air superiority fighter before the USN actually "hinted" them. I can't recall the source right now (if i find it i will post it), but they did mention it was considerably lighter.

 

I pretty much agree with the rest of the post. Just to add few smaller points. The benefits of the extra thrust are not always visible from the Ps0 curves because they are not the best indicator of the level acceleration increase which in turn help the regaining of energy. However one more thing is that the induced drag does not increase in linear fashion with the increase in alpha. While the increase in lift is mostly linear until you reach the stalling limit, the drag will increase slowly until you reach optimum lift to drag, and then start to rise sharply with the angle of attack. Or as one Tomcat driver put it, while the new engines gave you plenty of liberty to chose your lines of attack, on the defensive they didn't matter all that much. Once you start breaking and your induced drag skyrockets, no engine in the universe is going to generate enough thrust to help you sustain your turn.

 

What most people tend not to realize (or chose to ignore), is that even the "underpowered" F-14 had a pretty good performance despite the "lack" of thrust, thanks to the lift to drag optimization. I think it was considered to be the aerodynamically most advanced and efficient design until the Flanker family came into existence. Even then, it could probably easily outrun almost anything on the deck or at mid altitude.

[foxbat155]

Gentlemen, I know you are Tomcat fanboys, but facts are facts :music_whistling:. Navy pilots called her "Turkey":megalol:. Guess why?. Dogfight it's not Tomcat's world, as I said BVR it's different story. Flogger was most agile swing wing combat aircraft ever built. I know, you don't like it, really sorry. MiG-23 was created as interceptor but became very good dogfighter as well.

[Flycat]

because it swings its wing like a turkey before it landing on the carrier.

[NORTHMAN]

Gentlemen, I know you are Tomcat fanboys, but facts are facts :music_whistling:. Navy pilots called her "Turkey":megalol:. Guess why?. Dogfight it's not Tomcat's world, as I said BVR it's different story. Flogger was most agile swing wing combat aircraft ever built. I know, you don't like it, really sorry. MiG-23 was created as interceptor but became very good dogfighter as well.

 

:megalol::megalol::megalol: Ok, looking like you are a flogger fanboy, but facts is fact, this is not something that can happens.:music_whistling: ist called turkey because its a very large airplane, with wide wingspan and a turkey is a very large bird with very large wingspan! (maybe you dont understand, people called planes: bird:huh:). BVR and in a dogfight F-14 will crushed any flogger you throw to combat! I know you dont like this! F-14 wad builed as an interceptor but was a very good dogfighter from the beginning!

 

sincerly, I apologize for everyone who could be offence by this writing! ist a dogfight writing involving me and foxbat! :lol::lol::lol:

 

That said, it should be good to find evidence about maneuverability ( in the real world, with non-fictionnal facts) of the F-14. Because its a thread about it.:mad:

Edited March 5, 2015 by NORTHMAN

[foxbat155]

Turkey because it's easy target, " turkey hunting" it's means something for you?. And yes I'm fanboy - facts not wishful thinking fanboy.:thumbup:

 

Yes lads please find some evidence. Numbers, facts, graphs not emotions and wishes. Greetings.

[outlawal2]

Turkey because it's easy target, " turkey hunting" it's means something for you?. And yes I'm fanboy - facts not wishful thinking fanboy.:thumbup:

 

Yes lads please find some evidence. Numbers, facts, graphs not emotions and wishes. Greetings.

 

And where are your "Numbers, facts, graphs not emotions and wishes?"

:thumbup:

[Dudikoff]

Flogger was most agile swing wing combat aircraft ever built. I know, you don't like it, really sorry. MiG-23 was created as interceptor but became very good dogfighter as well.

 

Most agile variable-sweep wing aircraft? Hardly surprising considering it's the lightest of them all and there were only a few fighter interceptors made (other two being F-14 and Tornado ADV and the 23MLD is about twice as light).

 

How exactly did it become a "very good" dogfighter? They did make the final variants lighter, with strengthened structure, improved controls and some vortex generating bits (MLD only) so the maneuverability was noticeably improved from a dog the older M variants were, but that doesn't magically turn the plane designed for something else into a very good dogfighter. I'm sure the variable sweep gave it some advantage at certain slow speed ranges, but it still bled the energy pretty fast and based on the pilot reports, it was very demanding to fly and it took a very experienced pilot to handle all of the controls and get the most out of it.

[captain_dalan]

I'm sure the variable sweep gave it some advantage at certain slow speed ranges, but it still bled the energy pretty fast and based on the pilot reports, it was very demanding to fly and it took a very experienced pilot to handle all of the controls and get the most out of it.

 

Ironically the forward wing sweep was not even used for flying, but mostly landing and takeoff. And it was exclusively manually controlled. But this is all academic. No static T/W or wing load, or even climb rate matters in the end. What you need is the Ps curves for different g-loads per mach and per altitude. And that's only the start. Lateral stability indicators and pitching momentum would help too. If you ever worked on flight models for sims you probably know this better then me.

 

What can i say to Flogger but..... lift-drag tables, or it didn't happen. In the case he doesn't have those, E-M charts for at least 3 separate altitudes or it didn't happen.

[Dudikoff]

Ironically the forward wing sweep was not even used for flying, but mostly landing and takeoff. And it was exclusively manually controlled.

 

I was referring to the MLD which *supposedly* had either another 33 deg wing sweep position (in addition to standard ones for ML like 18, 47 and 74) or the combat sweep position was set to 33 instead of the 47 degree one. But, it's not a readily available information so I'm not sure how valid it is.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Dudikoff

[panzerd18]

The Mig-23 acceleration was brutal.

[captain_dalan]

The Mig-23 acceleration was brutal.

That's true. I have never seen the exact acceleration charts per altitude, but people that flew against it in training and/or combat say that there is almost a 0% probability of catching it if it decides to dash out of neutral merge.

 

I was referring to the MLD which *supposedly* had either another 33 deg wing sweep position (in addition to standard ones for ML like 18, 47 and 74) or the combat sweep position was set to 33 instead of the 47 degree one. But, it's not a readily available information so I'm not sure how valid it is.

 

Ah, well that makes sense. I think it was also the version that introduced the aerodynamic changes (was a dog tooth among them?) that elevated some of the handling issues and the early buffet onset.

[lunaticfringe]

"Turkey" stems from the look behind the boat- gear down, wings out, and control surfaces in various directions.

 

The dog tooth, strengthening, and lightening don't overcome the center of gravity/center of lift issue inherent in the MiG-23's design.

 

As to performance, allow me to get home from a doctors appointment, and you'll have plenty on the F-14.

 

Ergo- don't feed the Flogger troll. And I might just have some data he won't like about the MiG.

 

Oh, btw- do the words "progressive goat" mean anything to you, foxbat?

[Nerdwing]

The Mig-23 acceleration was brutal.

 

Hated having to intercept them in Falcon 4.0 :lol:

 

You'd never catch them if they just wanted to get away. They thankfully didnt outrun Patriots though.

[lunaticfringe]

I'll show you just a *fraction* of my data (as I own both 01-F14AAA-1.1 *and* 01-F14AAP-1.1 in hard copy), let's see some of yours, Foxbat.

 

And don't give me typical Soviet-era hand-waving garbage they fed their aircrews (such as I can find from here):

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/ussr/mikoyangurevitch/mig-23/5379todo.html

 

Or a comparable laugher from the -23ML (which underlines what an embarrassing statement you've made) here:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20120406214900/http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id16.html

 

There is no combination of data that you can find on God's green earth that will present the MiG-23 as a more maneuverable combatant at ACM than the F-14, in any configuration. None. The instability at high CL at wings forward in all versions of the Flogger (produced by the aforementioned center of pressure ahead of center of gravity, thereby generating negative static margin- and if you don't know that that does to stability, you can leave this conversation right now) precluded employment of maximum G in the one configuration it *might* have been respectable.

 

The MiG-23 does *one* thing: it runs, even when you don't want it to.

 

You're done, fanboy. Fini. сделано. Busted.

[Scoggs]

The MiG-23 does *one* thing: it runs, even when you don't want it to.

 

[/QUOTe]

 

So is that the time when the RIO says "set us up for a Phoenix shot!"?

[lunaticfringe]

Especially since at wings aft, he's got nowhere near the available G to defend against the Phoenix.

 

This is a hilarious conversation when you think about it- a fanboy with no data calling others fanboys, stating they have no data.

 

Except I do. Guess it comes from being raised not to talk unless the capability is there to back it up.